Sitting of 7 June 2000

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER.)
Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
To be further considered on Wednesday 14 June.
RAILTRACK (WAVERLEY STATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Rwanda
  Mr. Desmond Browne: When she last met British non-governmental organisations to discuss the situation in Rwanda; and if she will make a statement. [123169]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I met representatives of United Kingdom and Rwandan non-governmental organisations during my visit to Rwanda last month. Rwanda is a desperately poor country recovering from a terrible genocide in 1994, which the international community shamefully failed even to try to prevent. Progress since 1994 has been considerable. The UK is playing a major role in supporting the Government and people of Rwanda in trying to promote development and reconciliation.
  Mr. Browne: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I preface my supplementary question by observing that representatives of all the UK NGOs to whom I have spoken and who have a presence in Rwanda applaud the Government's decision on bilateral debt. That said, I recall that it was intended once that heavily indebted poor countries such as the very poor Rwanda would be fast-tracked for international debt relief. What has happened to that proposed action, and when can we expect debt decision day for Rwanda?
  Clare Short: The importance of that decision was that Rwanda is a post-conflict country. Under previous arrangements, it would have requited a much longer track
  272
  record of good economic management before it qualified for all sorts of International Monetary Fund and World Bank support, which would in turn have been required before HIPC relief could be achieved. Rwanda has been fast-tracked, and is now working on an interim poverty reduction strategy. I cannot remember the exact date, but that will be finalised in a matter of months, taking Rwanda to the point of beginning the debt relief process. I am pleased to say that it is doing well.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Secretary of State will know that the United Nations has just produced a report tracking the progress of women since the Beijing conference five years ago. With that in mind, and given the experience that the Select Committee on International Development and I had in Rwanda of talking to women survivors of the genocide and hearing of their terrible suffering and problems, can she say what influence she has had on the Rwandan Government over how they deploy the survivors fund? Can she ensure that the benefit of that fund goes to the survivors of the genocide, and no one else?
  Clare Short: Yes, indeed. When I went to Rwanda, I met one of the young women who runs the surviving widows organisation, which represents about 30,000 women. Many of those women have HIV because they were raped. Many were mutilated. Many have children. Many have memories of seeing all the members of their family slaughtered before their eyes. What they went through is unimaginable, and that is what reconciliation must deal with in Rwanda. We are providing support to the survivors fund, as well as to that organisation. I have not heard criticism of the use of the fund. The problem in Rwanda is with capacity; most educated people were slaughtered, so even when good will exists, often there is not the administrative capacity to follow through on policy. I share the hon. Lady's objectives, and we are doing all we can.
  Mr. Paul Goggins: Given the progress made on conflict resolution in Rwanda, will the Secretary of State say why she believes Rwanda is engaged in conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo?
  Clare Short: Rwanda has what I might call the best case for being involved in the DRC. Fighters there wish to return to Rwanda to complete the genocide. For Rwanda, to fight back means that the north of the country has been pacified, and things in Rwanda are better accordingly. The war is using resources, which obviously is not beneficial. We need implementation of the Lusaka peace accords, which Rwanda backs strongly. Rwanda needs peace in the DRC and security. The Ex-FAR and Interhamwe, who want to complete the genocide, must be disarmed so that low-level members may return to Rwanda and international criminals go to the international tribunal.

  Education
  Mr. Paul Burstow: If she will make a statement on the provision of education in countries involved in conflict. [123171]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Conflict seriously disrupts lives and livelihoods, and education is a major casualty. The needs of displaced children are particularly acute. While all possible effort must be made to provide education to displaced children, progress in meeting the target of universal primary education by 2015 will depend on the resolution of conflict and a return to a focus on development.
  Mr. Burstow: Is education not part of the solution to the conflicts? Given that smart aid has proved effective at delivering humanitarian assistance in many countries, can the same approach not be used for development aid? Given that education is a key way to unlock potential and reduce conflict, how can it be right that countries such as Ethiopia and Sudan have had their budgets cut? Generation after generation of children have not had education. Surely the Government should do more through smart aid to get money to assist those children.
  Mr. Foulkes: Of course education is part of the solution, and poverty eradication is the key to getting rid of some of the major causes of conflicts. However, it is very difficult to ensure that there is proper education, and to get children into schools, and schools running properly, where conflicts exist. Where conflicts are escalating, as they are in Ethiopia and Eritrea, it is doubly difficult to achieve those goals.
  Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend agree that no Government who are committed to delivering universal primary education should be prevented from doing so because of a lack of resources? Will the Department for International Development be able to make progress on that issue at the United Nations millennium summit?
  Mr. Foulkes: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In the past three years, the Department has spent £300 million—11 per cent. of our Budget—on education, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and south-east Asia. Nevertheless, I give my hon. Friend this pledge: we aim to do a great deal more.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—that in areas of conflict, people lose their lives not only because of the conflict itself, but because of the disease that ravages such areas? What role does the Department have in providing education for young people—particularly in Africa, but, unfortunately, increasingly in south-east Asia, too—on the dangers of AIDS? Specifically, what is the Department doing to support the excellent work being done by the World Health Organisation?
  Mr. Foulkes: Given the response that the hon. Gentleman received from my hon. Friends, I am a bit reluctant to agree with him. On this occasion, however, I agree with him 100 per cent; he is absolutely right. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] He cannot be wrong every time.
  I had the privilege of visiting Mlazi township, in South Africa, to see for myself the work being done with peer education, which entails youngsters talking to other youngsters about what needs to be done to prevent
  274
  HIV-AIDS. Additionally, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, the Prime Minister announced that we are spending £100 million to help to eradicate AIDS in Africa. Again, however, we plan to do a great deal more.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: What financial support the European Union is providing for the administration of elections in Kosovo. [123172]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The European Commission has contributed 5 million euros to the combined civil registration and electoral enrolment exercise currently in progress in Kosovo. The United Kingdom share of that contribution is almost 1 million euros. We have also directly contributed £1.25 million.
  Dr. Godman: I offer my compliments to my hon. Friend's officials who are administering aid programmes in Kosovo. Not long ago I was in Kosovo, and I saw that they are doing great work there. Given the turbulent conditions in Kosovo, it will be extremely difficult to administer fair municipal elections. Is there not a case for ensuring that some municipal seats are reserved for Serb candidates and other representatives of minority communities?
  Mr. Foulkes: I am aware that my hon. Friend visited Kosovo with the Foreign Affairs Committee in March, when some of our officials were there on an assessment mission—which we are following up with a great deal more help to Kosovo. We are trying to encourage the Serbs to register and to participate, but so far, very few of them have registered. That is due in part to intimidation from Belgrade. We think that more has to be done to encourage Serbs to participate, and we are examining how, in terms of voter education, we can support them in doing so.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What action is the Department taking to ensure that there are enough international police officers in Kosovo to ensure that those elections will indeed be fair and free?
  Mr. Foulkes: I understand that the Government have taken action by providing police officers from Northern Ireland. I am not sure of the exact details of the arrangement, but I undertake to reply in detail to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Given the recent increase in murders of members of minorities by the Kosovo Liberation Army, how can the Government guarantee anyone's safety? Is it not clear that Kosovo is now being run by a bunch of terrorists?
  Mr. Foulkes: We cannot guarantee that. We do not have responsibility for it; the United Nations Mission in Kosovo has the responsibility. We do whatever we can to support UNMIK: we have made a substantial financial contribution and provided personnel support. I hope to be

  275
  able to visit Kosovo in July, and I and undertake to look into any problems or issues raised by my hon. Friend or by any other hon. Member.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: We getting used to hearing the Government announce plans for new expenditure, only to find that they involve a re-announcement of the same money, but it is worrying when doubts are cast on this country's aid budget. Today, yet again, the Minister has said that this country will give a great deal more help to Kosovo. Will he answer the question raised in the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Kosovo, which was published today? Of the £100 million aid announced at the Brussels conference in March by his colleague the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), on stability pact financing, how much was new money and how much had already been announced? Is the Financial Times right to suggest that the Government are callously redirecting the Balkan aid programmes?
  Mr. Foulkes: With respect, I did not announce any additional assistance. I dealt with the question of the registration of Serbs and with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The European Commission is spending 865 million euros. That has already been announced; I am merely repeating it. Bilateral assistance from European countries provides an almost equivalent sum. There are, of course, other calls on our budget—from Africa, south Asia and elsewhere. On other occasions, the hon. Lady has accused us of spending too much in Europe and not enough in Africa.

  EU Development Work
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: If she will make a statement on progress in reforming the EU's development work. [123173]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We have been working since 1997 to try to improve the very poor quality of EU development efforts, which take up one third of my budget. I welcome the commitment of the new European Commission to reform. A statement of overall EC development policy and an action plan to implement the reform process are now being negotiated, but the impact of the promised reform has yet to be felt on the ground and there is, as yet, no plan for implementation.
  Mr. Savidge: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it true that over the past 10 years, the European Union has reduced spending on the poorest countries? If so, can that be explained or justified?
  Clare Short: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right: 75 per cent. of EU aid went to the poorest countries in 1987, whereas the proportion is now 51 per cent. That cannot possibly be justified. It arises from a fractured decision-making structure and lots of gesture spending, whereby large amounts are announced—often without any analysis of how the money will be spent or how it will promote development—in response to the political concerns of the day. That leads to extremely poor
  276
  development assistance, as has been demonstrated by all the evaluations that we have requested. We have a well argued reform agenda, but there is a long way to go.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Secretary of State agree that to those of us who are glad to be members of the EU and proud of much of what it has achieved, its total failure to manage its aid budget is an obstacle to our support? Will she commit herself to doing her best either to ensure that the EU has the resources to put in place the administration necessary for the swift disbursement of aid, or to repatriate a large proportion of the budget that we provide?
  Clare Short: I completely agree that such failures bring the EU into disrepute. The Commission and member states together provide 60 per cent. of worldwide overseas development aid and comprise the world's biggest single donor. If Europe had a clear vision of how to promote development in the poorest countries, it could be a major force for good—more powerful than any individual European country could be, because it could gather critical mass and exploit the international reach of all the countries of Europe. However, the EU's current performance is not good enough. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are working hard on a reform agenda. Chris Patten said recently that if Europe cannot do better in the next few years, it should be less ambitious in what it asks member states to provide, perform well on that basis and then build up again. In that way, we might achieve a better quality effort.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Steve McCabe: In which areas of Mozambique the main British aid effort is concentrated. [123174]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working at national level to support Mozambique's impressive commitment to reform. We are supporting customs reform, health and education reform and providing budgetary aid. I am happy to tell the House that I have recently decided that Mozambique should have a further £40 million in budgetary aid. Our provincial focus is in Zambezia province, which is one of the poorest areas of Mozambique and was a major centre of fighting during the civil war. We are focusing there on de-mining, land reform, rural roads and micro-finance.
  Mr. McCabe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that before the floods, Mozambique was almost a model in Africa for progress in its economy and efforts to heal the divisions following the brutal civil war? What progress is the country making in recovering from the devastating effect of the floods?
  Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right; Mozambique is a star. After years of war and bad economic management, it raised its economic growth to 9 per cent. a year. That is the kind of level that countries in Africa need to move the economy forward and reduce poverty. Mozambique is a country of desperate poverty, but with a very powerful commitment to reform and making great progress. The floods set it back, and this year's economic growth

  277
  will probably be 5 per cent.—but still positive. The expectation of all donors in the international financial institutions is that Mozambique will recover and get back on its path of growth and reform.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Will the Secretary of State confirm that her departmental report this year includes a cut of £24 million in spending on Mozambique over the next three years? Is that not a reflection of the fact that under Labour the British aid budget expressed as a percentage of gross national product has fallen from 0.27 per cent. in 1997 to 0.23 per cent. in 2000? Will she confirm that that is a clear breach of the manifesto commitment that she gave to increase the aid budget expressed as a percentage of GNP?
  Clare Short: No, I cannot confirm that. The hon. Gentleman's questions confirm the fact that he has serious numeracy problems. There has been no cut in our aid programme. This year, there has been the biggest increase in aid spending in one year—an all-time record in the British aid programme. Because the OECD development administration committee in Paris counts in calendar rather than financial years, there is a technical flaw in the figures, as it says in its announcement. The hon. Gentleman needs to go back to school for some arithmetic lessons.
  Mr. Streeter: The Secretary of State's excuses simply will not do. She used to attack us on the basis of the GNP figures, and she must accept those figures herself. She cannot confirm my points—though she is wrong—so will she confirm that she is presiding over the lowest GNP spend on aid for 30 years? Will she confirm that for the first time in a decade, despite all her spin and hype, the British aid spend is less than the average of OECD countries? Will she confirm that even according to her Department's figures, the average GNP spend on aid over this Parliament will be less than that over the previous Parliament? She said that under Labour, GNP spend would go up; it has gone down. Is it any wonder that the British people are beginning to reject this Labour Government?
  Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman has got serious problems with any attachment to accuracy and truth. It is the job of Oppositions to oppose. but it is also their job to accept facts as facts. I have just told the hon. Gentleman that, after years and years under the Government of whom he was a member—in a junior capacity, admittedly—there was decline and decline in Britain's aid budget. That has been reversed. This year there is the largest ever increase in a single year. There is a technical measure in the OECD development administration committee's announcement, but it adds that that is a technical measure, and that Britain's programme is going up. So, no: the hon. Gentleman is wrong, wrong, wrong, not attached to the truth, and has real numeracy problems.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does not the Government's record on aid to Mozambique underline their policy of helping countries that show positive signs, as Mozambique has done since the end of its civil war? The fact that so much has been done to overcome the disastrous floods shows that the Government have
  278
  responded in a positive way. Does not Mozambique send out a positive signal to Angola, on the other side of Africa, about what could happen if it got over its civil war and went forward in a positive way?
  Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Important studies have recently been conducted on where aid is effective. It is effective where there are reformers, and big resource transfers come behind them to leverage and speed up economic reform, and then reform in education and health care. We are moving away from the gesture spending of the European Commission and the previous Government and towards backing reformers. That says to any country that if it goes down that road we will be behind it, and it can have fast economic growth and improved social programmes. We are beginning to get reformers setting good examples for others.[Interruption.]

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Edward Leigh: If she will make a statement on aid to Zimbabwe. [123175]
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: If she will make a statement on her Department's activities in Zimbabwe. [123176]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I apologise for being slow in responding to these questions, Madam Speaker, but I could not hear for all the noise.
  Our country strategy paper for Zimbabwe was published in April 1999. It outlines the case for economic reform and land redistribution in order to improve the life opportunities of poor Zimbabweans, and makes clear our willingness to provide resources of up to £36 million for that purpose. Unfortunately, there has been no such reform and the economic and political situation, as everybody knows, has deteriorated very badly indeed. Our programme is therefore limited and focused on HIV-AIDS, water and rural livelihoods. Our spending is £12 million. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. It is very noisy. No wonder the Secretary of State cannot hear, and neither can I. The House is so noisy that I could not even hear whether she is taking Questions 6 and 7 together. I understand that she is. Let us have a little less noise.
  Mr. Leigh: With a country such as Zimbabwe, whose economy has been so ruined by corruption and cronyism, is not the lever of British aid a significant one? Has sufficient weight been applied to that lever, or is the truth that, with their policy of appeasement of the dictator Mugabe, the Secretary of State and her colleague are the Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax of the situation? They are dithering while our passport holders are being ethnically cleansed, humiliated and driven from the country.
  Clare Short: President Mugabe has made it clear, repeatedly and on the record, that he had a much more friendly relationship with the previous Government than with the current Government, and found them much more helpful. There has been no appeasement by the

  279
  Government. The situation in Zimbabwe is an absolute tragedy. The economy is shrinking, inflation is at 80 per cent. and there is political thuggery, killing and intimidation to prevent people from standing for election. We have not appeased Zimbabwe in any way. The House, the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members should not do exactly what Mugabe wants, which would allow him to go back to his heyday and pretend that he was fighting the defenders of the white regime in Zimbabwe. That is what he wants, because he is in so much difficulty with his people. We should stand up for what is right and let the people of Zimbabwe control their future.
  Mr. Robathan: The right hon. Lady will know that I support her projects for fighting AIDS and HIV, and the water purification projects, but although she has referred to the dreadful Government-inspired campaign of intimidation, violence and murder, the has not mentioned the fact that the Mugabe Government are spending millions each week on a war in Congo that is all about lining the pockets of Mugabe and his cronies. Does she accept that the people of Zimbabwe will perceive our aid programme as support of the Government, even though that perception may be wrong? Would it not be better to stop all our aid programme until this dreadful man is thrown out of office?
  Clare Short: I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman says, except his underestimation of the intelligence of the people of Zimbabwe. Their President has told them clearly what he thinks of the UK Government and their view of his policies. For us to withdraw from programmes that are trying to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS—in a country where one in four of the adult population has the infection—would do nothing to hurt President Mugabe. We have that problem in many other badly governed countries. To withdraw completely would not help those who are being oppressed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of what is taking place in Zimbabwe, but to withdraw from preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS and the provision of water and sanitation to very poor people would not hurt President Mugabe.

  The Prime Minister was asked—

  Engagements
  Dr. George Turner: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 June.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I went to the Women's Institute, where I had an interesting exchange with some of its members. 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.
  Dr. Turner: I am sure that I speak for the whole House if I first briefly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his family on their newest arrival. We all wish them well.
  280
  My right hon. Friend will be aware that during his short absence political debate has returned to the old battleground of opportunities, for the many or the few, with the Tories committed—as ever—to the few. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although much has been done, there are too many barriers preventing too many people from achieving their full potential and will he commit his Government to ensuring that they may do so?
  The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and, what is more, I am delighted to see today that teaching applications are now up 30 per cent. That is a direct result of the measures that the Government have taken and, along with the best ever literacy and numeracy results this country has seen, it shows that, slowly but surely, we are getting the education system right.
  Mr. William Hague: I very much join in the personal congratulations to the Prime Minister and his wife, and I very much welcome him back to the Floor of the House of Commons. We all know how difficult it must have been, with sleepless nights, a lot of noise and a refusal to settle down, and that was just the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Was it not a shame that the Chancellor reignited class war, plunged the Government into a complete shambles, made statements that he could not then back up, and exposed a whole catalogue of hypocrisy at the heart of new Labour? If the Prime Minister agrees with the Chancellor, as he says he does, is he prepared to repeat the assertions made by the Chancellor that Oxford admissions are scandalous and based on the old school tie?
  The Prime Minister: It is only the Tories who could be satisfied with the numbers of children going from state schools to universities. Let me quote from the Sutton Trust's report on Monday. It said that children from independent schools are 25 times more likely to enter a top university than those from a lower social class or living in poverty. The Conservatives are happy with that situation: we believe that it has to change.
  Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister knows all about going to university from independent schools, but it looks like the Chancellor is being hung out to dry. Should not Ministers be helping universities bring in students from all backgrounds by raising the standards of schools, rather than denouncing university admissions departments out of ignorance and spite? Does not this whole affair tell us more about the internal politics of the Labour party than the Government's approach? Has it not occurred to the Prime Minister that when the Chancellor whinges about public schoolboys getting the top jobs, he is not just talking about Oxford university? If the Prime Minister agrees with the Chancellor, is he prepared to use the same words as Chancellor about this matter?
  The Prime Minister: First, we are investing more money to help recruit and retain the brightest students everywhere, but the issue is surely how we increase the level and quality of state education in this country. We are raising education spending as a proportion of our national income, whereas the Leader of the Opposition would cut education spending. Interruption.] Well, I shall give the figures. In the two years when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Conservative Cabinet, education spending as a

  281
  proportion of national income fell. Under this Government, it has risen. Who cares more about state education—the people increasing spending, or the person who cut it?
  Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has been asked twice to agree with the Chancellor, and twice he has hung the Chancellor out to dry. Is not the real lesson that this Government say one thing and do another? Have they not now taken hypocrisy in government to a new extreme? The Leader of the House of Lords says that her fee-paying school was a pretty standard grammar school. The Government criticise people who go to Oxford from private schools, even though their leader did so himself. Ministers attack privilege as they leave their ninth bathroom on their way to their third home in their second Jaguar.
  However many times the Prime Minister relaunches this Government, is it not now clear that they are happy to use opportunity and privilege for themselves, while trying to deny it to others?
  The Prime Minister: We do not have to talk about theory, we can talk about the record—of the Conservative Government when they were in power, and of this Government. Who put 3 million people on the dole? The Tories. Who doubled homelessness? The Tories. Who trebled child poverty? The Tories. Who doubled crime? The Tories. Who doubled the national debt? The Tories. [Interruption.] They do not like the facts, do they?
  We are the Government who have put a million extra people into work, who have cut the national debt, who are investing £6 billion in school buildings, who are delivering literacy and numeracy to people. We are the Government who have introduced the minimum wage, the new deal and the working families tax credit.
  The Leader of the Opposition has spoken about how the liberal elite has wrecked education in this country, but a 21-year-old will have spent every year of his or her education under a Tory Government. It is not a liberal elite that has wrecked education in this country. It is a Tory Government.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: With reference, for a change, to the euro currency, may I tempt my right hon. Friend to go just a little further than he has done previously? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is successful with his five economic tests and economic convergence, will my right hon. Friend recommend entry to the euro to the British people?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend cannot tempt me to go further than the policy that the Government have set out, but I will, of course, restate it. In principle, we are in favour of joining a successful single currency, but in practice the economic conditions have to be met. What would be absolute folly would be for this country to rule out the possibility of joining the euro even if it were in our economic interests to do so.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: In adding my personal congratulations to the Prime Minister, may I welcome him back to Prime Minister's
  282
  Question Time? After what he was subjected to at this morning's Women's Institute performance, it must seem a warm and comfortable experience.
  Mention has been made of access to higher and further education. Given the trends that are being revealed, does the Prime Minister welcome the fact that the Scottish Executive abolished tuition fees, so that more Scottish students can go to Scottish universities?
  The Prime Minister: Such decisions are entirely up to the Scottish Executive: that is the point of devolution. However, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not regret changing the system here. The latest figures indicate that 40 per cent. of families in this country are exempt from tuition fees. In the end, the only way that we were able to get the numbers of people going into university away from the old cap applied under the Tories was to change the basis of student finance. In doing so, we followed the all-party Dearing committee report. It is completely absurd for political parties who joined in that report to deny its implementation.
  Madam Speaker: Mr. Tam Dalyell.
  Mr. Kennedy rose—
  Madam Speaker: No, I am sorry—your second question, Mr. Kennedy.
  Mr. Kennedy: I consider this one a top-up, Madam Speaker. Are the Government doing any research into the fact that the figures show that the number of applications from Scottish students wanting to go to Scottish universities is up, and the number of applications from English and Welsh students wanting to attend universities is on the slide? Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that? Is it completely unconnected with the imposition of tuition fees? If we are really about opportunity, would not that be the opportunity to concentrate on, rather than the opportunism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  The Prime Minister: No, in fact, enrolment of school leavers in English universities is up, not down. It is important to recognise that if we are to expand university education, we will, like virtually every country around the world, have to have a balance. We are actually putting more money into higher education and universities, but if we want to invest properly in the facilities of those universities, and increase the numbers available to go to university, we simply have to change the system of finance. Virtually every major country around the world has had to do the same, and I think that it is right that the Government made the difficult, but right, choice to reform student finance. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman: as he knows, his party can sit there promising to spend limitless amounts of money, but it never says where the money comes from.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will hold discussions with the Governments of (a) Bahrain, (b) the United Arab Emirates, (c) Saudi Arabia, (d) Iran and (e) Turkey on the future of UN sanctions against Iraq.
  The Prime Minister: We maintain regular contacts with all these Governments on a wide range of issues, including the UN sanctions regime against Iraq.
  Mr. Dalyell: As four of the countries mentioned in the question have already sent embassies to Baghdad; as the Government of Italy have sent an embassy to Baghdad since the question was tabled; and as even the Saudis are extremely ambivalent about the Qatar proposals, has not the time come to reflect on whether the policy of sanctions is not counter-productive?
  The Prime Minister: Security Council resolution 1284, as my hon. Friend knows, is a way forward that would allow us to get to the point of suspending sanctions. However, that can be done only if Iraq complies with the international community's demands to halt the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction.
  In respect of humanitarian aid, as I have said to my hon. Friend many times, Iraq has the ability to get as much of that aid as it wants and to use it for its people and for medicines and medical facilities, but it is not choosing to do so. So we have to keep up the pressure for Iraq to come into line with the Security Council resolutions. Of course we feel for the humanitarian suffering in Iraq, but the only way of making sure that we do not allow Saddam Hussein to use that as a bargaining counter to start developing these weapons again is to stick to the principles that the UN set out.

  Engagements
  Mr. Christopher Gill: As a former naval person, I am very concerned to learn that the interval between ordering new warships for the Royal Navy is longer now than since the reign of Henry VIII. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity of telling the House why, since he came to power more than three years ago, not one new warship has been ordered for Royal Navy?
  The Prime Minister: We have, in fact, a very full procurement programme, but I do not think that we should take any lessons from a political party that cut defence spending by 30 per cent. It is this Government who are increasing the procurement programme.
  Mr. Brian Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituents and the many ex-service men in this country that the Hollywood film "U-571", which portrays American sailors retrieving the Enigma machine and codes, is an affront to the memory of the British sailors who lost their lives in this action? I refer in particular to Lieutenant Tony Fasson and Tamworth-born Colin Grazier. They were both awarded the George medal posthumously, and were both local heroes.
  The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says. The two people he mentioned fought with great distinction and bravery; of course, we honour their memory. We hope that people realise that those were people who, in many cases, sacrificed their lives in order that this country remained free.
  Mr. David Amess: While the Prime Minister was away, did he have the opportunity to study the election results in Basildon—[Interruption.]—where Labour lost overall control, or in Southend where every Labour candidate lost? If he did not have time to do that, was he able to study the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and of his hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)—[Interruption.] They can be summed up by his noble Friend, Lord Sawyer who said that the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order—[Interruption.] Order. Mr. Amess will be heard.
  Mr. Amess: If the Prime Minister could not take in the election results, can he take in the remarks of his right hon. and hon. Friends, summed up by the noble Lord Sawyer, who said that the right hon. Gentleman was remote and completely out of touch, unlike the noble Baroness Thatcher. Before the Prime Minister looks for an answer in the book in front of him, what is his answer to the senior citizen who came to my surgery on Friday and said that the right hon. Gentleman's party is interested only in young people and could not care less about the elderly?
  The Prime Minister: Was that a planted question?
  I think that the local election results the hon. Gentleman studied were those in Basildon and that is why he ran off to Southend. Frankly, on the results of the general election, that was the wisest judgment he ever made.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: When does my right hon. Friend expect fox hunting to be banned?
  The Prime Minister: The Burns report will be published next week. The Home Secretary will make a statement and I am sure that the House will want to make its views known then.
  Mr. William Hague: Statistics in the past week show that health service waiting lists are up by 16,000 and that the number of new general practitioners joining the NHS is at its lowest for a decade. Last week, the Government also sent out 13 million survey forms, saying that they did not know how to run the national health service and would someone please let them know. Those forms were meant to be in on Monday. What proportion of the 13 million have been returned?
  The Prime Minister: Waiting lists are 100,000 below the level we inherited when we came into office. There are almost 4,000 extra doctors. It is perfectly sensible to consult people on the future of the health service. We will publish a plan in July, which will allow us to use the huge amount of extra money the Chancellor put into the health service.
  Mr. Hague: The closing date was 5 June—two days ago. The Prime Minister is obviously embarrassed, because he talks about a first-class health service, but the Government could not deliver a second-class letter. Was that not a costly public relations exercise? Is it not true

  285
  that the money should have been spent on operations? Was it not another example of the distorted priorities that doctors have complained about since the right hon. Gentleman came into office?
  This morning, the Prime Minister gave a speech and received the rare honour of a slow handclap from members of the Women's Institute. He has had three hours to think about that. Why does he think it happened?
  The Prime Minister: On health service funding—just to get it right for the right hon. Gentleman—whereas, when we took office, that funding was actually falling as a proportion of national income, it has now risen. No one should ever forget that he is committed to cutting the amount of health spending that the Chancellor has put in.
  Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister clearly has no idea why it happened and it is a mark of an out-of-touch Prime Minister that he does not know why he is out of touch. He is now totally out of touch with what is happening in the health service where more consultants are taking early retirement than ever before, more managers are leaving, fewer doctors are joining and 400,000 people are on a waiting list for a waiting list. This is a Government of gimmicks, empty words, empty gestures and public relations exercises. They are no longer even competent at them. Have we not seen in the past few weeks that the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned middle Britain and that middle Britain is abandoning him?
  The Prime Minister: Are 5,000 more nurses in the health service an empty gesture? There are 4,000 more doctors and every single accident and emergency department in the country will be refurbished if it wants it. There are 100,000 fewer people on the waiting lists and there has been the largest ever increase in health spending. People remember the national health service as it was under the Tories and what is more they now know that if the right hon. Gentleman's party came back to power, because of his plans on private health, £1 billion would be taken out of the health service tomorrow. Ours are the priorities that middle Britain wants.
  Ms Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the support that the House gave last month to raising the age of recruitment to the armed forces from 16 to 18? In the light of the vote, will he undertake to reconsider the issue with a view to bringing UK practice into line with that of our European partners?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot offer my hon. Friend the assurance that she wants. We have had a long tradition in this country of tying the age at which people go into the armed forces to the school-leaving age. Many of the people who join before the age of 18 are among those who stay on longest in the armed forces. I understand the arguments, but I am not convinced by them.
  Mr. Stephen Day: Why does the Prime Minister disagree with those 63 per cent. of his constituents in Sedgefield who oppose abolishing the pound and joining the euro? When will he have the
  286
  courage to tell them the answer, because it is manifestly obvious that he does not have the courage to tell the House?
  The Prime Minister: Neither my constituents nor, indeed, any of our constituents have been asked to join the euro now. The question is whether we should rule it out for the next Parliament. We are the party that is offering people a referendum so that they have a choice. If we recommend joining the euro, people will have a choice. However, the Conservative party would take that choice away from them. The constituents of mine to whom I talk would prefer to have the choice.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Skelmersdale in my constituency has one of the country's lowest rates of entry into our universities? That is not the result of a lack of talent, but the result of a lack of tradition of entry into higher education, and a whole range of social obstacles. Nevertheless, the citizens there help to finance the universities through their taxes and particularly the extra funding that Oxford and Cambridge receive from the taxpayer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a duty of the Government to ensure that the citizens of Skelmersdale and millions like them have an equal opportunity to get into our universities and perhaps especially our most prestigious universities? Does he further agree that, if the Leader of the Opposition is correct and a class war is brewing, the citizens of Skelmersdale and the millions like them should win it?
  The Prime Minister: It is extraordinary that the Conservatives should want to tolerate such a situation. May I give another fact from the Sutton report? Some 65 per cent. of those getting three A grades at A-level are from state schools , but they make up only 53 per cent. of the intake at the top universities. I should have thought that it was sensible to say that we all have a responsibility: the schools to encourage their pupils, the universities to go out to try to draw in a larger number of people, and us, as a Government, to fund education properly. That is why we are the party of opportunity for all and the Conservatives are the party of the few.
  Mr. Peter Luff: The Prime Minister has bizarrely claimed that abolishing the historic right to trial by jury for hundreds of offences is a modernising measure. Will he now confirm—as the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) was forced to do in Committee yesterday—that the measure's real purpose is to save the Treasury money because most convicted criminals will serve much shorter prison sentences that will be imposed by magistrates rather than by Crown courts?
  The Prime Minister: I said that it will allow us to save money, which is a good thing as it allows us to put money into the criminal justice system. It was recommended by a royal commission and the Lord Chief Justice said that it was right. Scotland has not done it for ages, and has not experienced any of the problems that have been raised. Finally, at the moment, the system is being abused. It is no good Conservatives touring the country with the piddling little measures that the right hon. Member for

  287
  Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is going on about when they are not prepared to take on the major issues that will clean up the criminal justice system. Unless we are prepared to take measures against drug dealers and abusers of criminal justice, the criminal issue will never be dealt with properly.
  Mr. Andrew Reed: Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite the overall strength of the economy, the textile sector has suffered over the past few years? Will he join me in welcoming the £10 million in aid that was announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and ensure that that is not the end of the story but the first step in strengthening that industry, which has a proud future in our economy?
  The Prime Minister: It is important to help the textile industry through a great period of restructuring and change. There is no doubt that the high level of sterling has caused it particular problems. However, in future, it must increase productivity, and produce goods with higher value added. The purpose of the money and programme that we are introducing is to try to help it do that and is the best way of guaranteeing the security of people's jobs.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): If he will visit west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in the St. Ives constituency.
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry to say that I have no immediate plans to do so.
  Mr. George: That is a pity because as I am sure the Prime Minister knows Cornwall has a distinctive culture and identity that allows it to play a full part in the celebration of diversity here and in the wider world. Has he heard yesterday's truly shocking news from Marazion in my constituency? It is alleged that a group of youths abused, physically and racially, a visiting party of young people from Berlin. Does the Prime Minister agree that, if certain members of the political elite in the Chamber abuse their privilege by appealing to base instincts and artfully blaming asylum seekers, blaming Europe and blaming foreigners at every opportunity it is little wonder that we find in Marazion, as elsewhere, that we reap what we sow.
  The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. Of course, we condemn that attack and detest xenophobic racism of any
  288
  sort. We are glad and proud to be a country that welcomes people from abroad and engages in proper cultural ties with other countries. I hope that we all welcome that.

  Engagements
  Mr. Paul Goggins: Is not one of the Government's most significant achievements the fact that, since May 1997, the number of people forced to depend on income support and job seeker's allowance has fallen by no less than 1 million? Does the Prime Minister agree that when the Tories talk about scrapping the new deal they reveal that they have learned nothing from the tragedy of unemployment that they created?
  The Prime Minister: Unemployment is at its lowest level for 20 years or more. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say that it would have fallen anyway. However, 250,000 jobs have been created through the new deal, which the Tories are committed to scrapping. As a result of 1 million extra jobs, there has been an £8 billion saving on welfare during this Parliament. The economic policy of reducing unemployment and the social policy of spending more on schools and hospitals therefore go together.
  Mr. William Cash: On the fundamental charter of rights, will the Prime Minister veto any proposal that those rights should be made binding and subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court? Will he restate that it is intended to be no more than a political showcase, as he said in a previous Question Time? Does he agree with the Minister of State responsible for European issues that proposals on those rights deal only with existing rights and will not amend anything in future?
  The Prime Minister: They are not legally binding rights and I reiterate entirely what I have said to the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber and elsewhere. I would have hoped that he and his colleagues would welcome the fact that we are to set up in a charter the basic rights of people in Europe. It is unfortunate that, when the notion of civil and democratic rights comes from Europe, that affronts the Conservative party.
  Given that the hon. Gentleman has been talking about backsliding in the Conservative party on the issue of Europe, I hope very much that that is the position. I hope also that the party finally comes to its senses and realises that the future of this country lies in its being a key player in the major strategic alliance on its doorstep and not, as many Tories want, in getting us out of Europe, with enormous damage to British jobs, industry and investment.

Point of Order
3.30 pm
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that on several occasions in the House I have raised the question of a private cosmetic surgeon named David Charles Herbert. Eighty written complaints have been made against him and sent to the General Medical Council. This surgeon continues to operate. I checked today, and he is operating at least twice a week in two hospitals.
The complaints are extremely serious. The GMC tells me that there is no legislation that allows it to suspend this man from his work, yet he continues to butcher women throughout the country. A ministerial statement should be made on this issue and the man should not continue to operate. The GMC should be given powers to suspend him. Instead, it has invited him for professional assessment.
Madam Speaker: I know that the hon. Lady has raised the issue on previous occasions. Indeed, she did so only yesterday with the Secretary of State for Health. I am not aware that a Minister is seeking to make a statement. If the hon. Lady would like to use her ingenuity and to read the Standing Orders, she may find that there are methods by which she can make an application that will allow her to express her views, and she may get a response. I leave the matter to her.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment)
3.32 pm
Ms Debra Shipley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 with regard to the status of the father of a child conceived posthumously.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issues concerning the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which, although a relatively recent Act, is in urgent need of amendment.
The Act came to my attention due to the plight of one of my constituents, Mrs. Marion Jordan, and her baby son, Daniel. Mr. and Mrs. Jordan were a happy newly married couple who wanted a family. Sadly, Mr. Jordan was diagnosed to be seriously ill with cancer. Hoping that treatment would help, and mindful of the devastating effects of some cancer treatments on fertility, Mr. and Mrs. Jordan decided to preserve a sample of Mr. Jordan's sperm, so that it could be used subsequently to conceive their much-wanted child. All this was carried out legally and professionally, and it is fully documented.
Mr. Jordan gave full consent for his sperm to be used by his wife to conceive his child. It is a child that they wanted, planned for and, indeed, longed for. Sadly, Mr. Jordan died. Mrs. Jordan went ahead and underwent IVF treatment, which happily resulted in a beautiful, healthy baby boy. By now, Mrs. Jordan had undergone the terrible trauma of losing her husband, but she had the great consolation that she had his son, Daniel.
Then her administrative troubles began. On going to register the birth of baby Daniel, Mrs. Jordan was distressed to discover that she was prevented from registering her deceased husband as the father of his own child. It is a shocking fact that the 1990 Act effectively makes baby Daniel illegitimate. That has to be wrong. This baby is a much-wanted child of whom his parents dreamed together. His mother is Marion Jordan, and there is documentary evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that David Jordan was his father. Yet the law provides that, because Mr. Jordan died prior to conception, he cannot be named on baby Daniel's birth certificate. Surely, no hon. Member who seriously believes in strengthening the family could possibly think that that is a sustainable position.
The law must be changed. In a letter to me dated November 1999, the head of the births and deaths branch of the General Register Office stated:
Section 28(6) of the Act provides that where the sperm of a man is used after his death he is not to be treated as the father of the child.
He added in the same letter that, in 1997, the Department of Health commissioned Professor Sheila McClean of Glasgow university to review the 1990 Act and that, in commenting on the review, the office of births and deaths said that it would welcome a change to the Act to allow the father's particulars to be recorded where a widow conceives her husband's child after his death.
The results of that review were published in July 1998. On 3 December 1998, in a written reply to a parliamentary question, the then the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), welcomed the report and stated that the Government

291
would seek public and professional views on its recommendations. That process was, she said, to be completed by April 1999. That Minister has since moved to another Department.
In November 1999, I contacted the present Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), hoping for a constructive outcome to the unhappy situation that my constituent, Marion Jordan and her then tiny new-born baby, were in. In December 1999, a whole year after the first ministerial response, the new Minister told me that she expected
to be able to make an announcement shortly on Professor McClean's recommendations, including our views on any possible amendments to the 1990 Act.
She added that the report raised concerns surrounding issues of inheritance. Inheritance issues, although legally important to address, are in this instance something of a red herring.
There has been no announcement from the Minister on the subject, although, on 26 January, her office said that an announcement would be made in four to six weeks. We are now not six weeks but six months further on and my constituent is still unable to register her late husband as the father of their child. Colleagues with constituents who are similarly and cruelly stranded in that legislative limbo-land have contacted me. I want to see action for these loved and wanted children.
My Bill proposes a simple amendment to the 1990 Act with regard to the status of the father of a child conceived posthumously, so that mothers such as Marion Jordan need never again suffer the double blow of losing a partner and having him legally denied as the parent of their child. As Professor McClean stated in her review:
The terms of s.28 of the 1990 Act make it clear that a child conceived posthumously is legally fatherless. Now, it might be thought that by taking the trouble to make a written statement of intent concerning the use of gametes after death, the man is intending that the child should be regarded as his.
292
She added:
Whilst the current legislation permits the child access to certain information about, for example, genetic provenance, it also expressly precludes the child from having a father for legal purposes.
It is ridiculous. Indeed, such legal status might be the child's right under the 1979 United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Article 2.1 states:
Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
Professor McClean therefore recommends amendment of section 28(6), which is exactly what my Bill seeks to do.
Professor McClean addressed the question of inheritance issues, which was raised as the problematic area by the present Minister. The professor recommends that the law should not be amended to secure inheritance rights of a child conceived after the death of its father—and thus that red herring is speedily dispatched.
The few simple amendments that I propose would mean a lot to the families who have had so much grief to deal with. I hope that my colleagues will support the Bill's passage into law.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Debra Shipley, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Simon Burns, Jackie Ballard, Barbara Follett, Mr. Geraint Davies, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Dr. Jenny Tonge and Ms Christine Russell.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment)
  HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (AMENDMENT)
  Ms Debra Shipley accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 with regard to the status of the father of a child conceived posthumously: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 June, and to be printed [Bill 138].
Opposition Day
[12Th ALLOTTED DAY]

Equal Opportunities in Britain
Madam Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.40 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was being simplistic and divisive in attacking the admissions procedure of Oxford University on the basis of a single, individual case; regrets the lack of action by the Government to promote freedom and opportunity for all the people of the United Kingdom; and calls on the Government to match its rhetoric with action, by removing government obstacles to the less well-off entering university, significantly increasing investment in education, taking those on low incomes out of income tax, tackling pensioner poverty, improving the quality of healthcare for all, and ensuring access to basic services in both rural and urban communities.
I initiate the debate against the backdrop, as we saw in Prime Minister's questions this afternoon and have seen even more so outside the Chamber lately, of some intriguing arguments beginning to develop among those who are against one set of elites and those who are against another. Many of the arguments are bogus. Let us hope that this afternoon we can point to some of the errors that may arise in politics when the specific is applied to the general.
It is invariably a mistake to enter into gesture politics, as we are all tempted to do from time to time. It is certainly a mistake for senior politicians to take a specific example and to generalise from it. That was one of the great mistakes that the leader of the Conservative party made recently over the Tony Martin case. Equally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands accused of taking a specific issue and overgeneralising it, in the Laura Spence case. That results in bad attitudes and, if legislation were ever to flow from it, worse laws.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who has been particularly prolific over the past week in respect of the Laura Spence case, put the issue well when he said that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer tries to raise a principle on the back of one specific case, he must answer the question on which he remains completely silent: which of the other candidates should have been turned down? Not to answer that question is gesture politics of the worst kind.
What matters is reality. Much of what the Government are saying—and to some extent the Conservatives as well, in so far as they intrude upon reality these days—is not what real life is about. I asked the Prime Minister this afternoon about tuition fees. Applications are up in Scotland from Scottish students, and down in Wales and England from Welsh and English students. The Prime Minister answered very carefully. He did not answer the question. He said that enrolments were up. As the Minister knows, applications and enrolments are two entirely different things in the tertiary education sector.
Speaking as a Scot, I welcome the fact that Scotland has a different policy, which is advantageous compared with that in England and Wales. However, I do not
294
welcome the fact that the Government will not acknowledge the deficiencies of their policy on a United Kingdom basis. I hope that the change in policy that was effected in the Scottish Parliament will provide a beacon for a policy change in respect of education in England and Wales.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: We in Wales are jealous of the Scottish Parliament's ability to enact such legislation; we would very much like to do that. I hope that the Government hear the right hon. Gentleman's encouraging words. Does he agree that, among the red herrings that have been trawled around, the needs of thousands of ordinary children are forgotten? That applies especially to those who may not go to university, but cannot get the resources to train in further education colleges.
Mr. Kennedy: In the spirit of celtic comradeship, may I say that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and that the Liberal Democrats wish that the Welsh Assembly had the legislative capacity to make the sort of decision that was made in Edinburgh? I hope that that case will be advanced in due course. I endorse the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Amid all the heat that the Chancellor's comments generated and the debate that they sparked, very little light has been shed on educational reality.
I have a copy of a letter, which was written to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) by a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). The writer considers student funding in general and tuition fees in particular. The letter reflects reality, as opposed to the headlines, and the news management that the Government have attempted. I have the student's permission to quote the letter. It states:
My opposition and "outrage" stems from the fact that the proposals as leaked in the recent Russell Group report … would mean that I couldn't afford to go to Oxford university. I came from a state comprehensive and was the first person from my school EVER to get a place at Oxbridge. My Dad is a fireman and my Mum works with disabled kids. They are typical middle class people, not affluent, but not too hard up. If they are expected to pay £5,000 per year for my university education, simply because I'm clever enough to get a place at Oxford, they cannot afford to do so.
That is the social reality in this country.
The Government's approach, especially to opportunity in higher and tertiary education, has been grossly deficient. They have also failed to invest adequately in the education system in general. If my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough catches your eye, Madam Speaker, he will want to concentrate on that issue. I cannot cover every item in our admittedly wide-ranging motion. Education and social opportunity is essential and I do not apologise for focusing on that to a large extent.
The second issue that we want to consider is the national health service. The Government have embarked on a fundamental rethink of the NHS. That was not promised or flagged up three years ago. The rhetoric at the end of the general election campaign stressed that people had a week in which to save the NHS by voting Labour, and that any other outcome would mean the demise of the NHS. The health service is not in that parlous state, thank God, but it is in deep difficulty, and staff morale is low; there is considerable disillusionment.

295
The Prime Minister has embarked on his great review. I do not know about the Minister's experience, or that of the Prime Minister, but, as a Member of Parliament who has visited many hospitals up and down the country in the past 17 years, the one persistent and consistent comment that I heard from health service staff is that they need more money, and that the last thing they need is politicians reorganising them yet again. Every Government fall prey to the temptation of reorganisation because they are unwilling to confront themselves or the tax-paying public with the harsh reality that if we want a better health service, we must be prepared to dig deeper in our pockets to provide it. That is where the political priority should lie, not in yet another bureaucratic, politically motivated and orchestrated reorganisation.
I do not believe that NHS staff are encouraged by the thought that yet another set of political masters will tear up the plant to see how it is growing; they want that plant to be better tended in the first place. That is how the funding priorities should have been set in the first half of this Parliament. We said so before, during and after the general election.
Mr. Phil Willis: We will say it at the next election.
Mr. Kennedy: I agree with my hon. Friend; we will say it at the next election, and we have been proved comprehensively correct.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much he welcomes today's Mental Health Alliance lobby of Parliament? Will he join me in regretting that, in all 11 pages of the major speech that the Secretary of State for Health made yesterday, there was no reference to users of mental health services, their carers or mental health staff?
Mr. Kennedy: I welcome that lobby, and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have had discussions with those involved today. That oversight is certainly significant and sad. I hope that the fact that the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to put it on the parliamentary record will stop any such deficiency occurring in future. I very much agree with him.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Although I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about NHS resources—I am delighted that substantial extra resources will be provided during the next three years—I am surprised that he thinks that fundamental reform is not needed. Is he happy about the fact that part-time consultants in the NHS, especially orthopaedic surgeons, have long waiting lists and that people have to wait perhaps a year for hip operations that could be carried out next week if they went private and paid for them?
Mr. Kennedy: My criticism of further reform at this stage is that many of the institutional and structural issues that the Government and, in particular, the Prime Minister will address are the result of insufficient funding during the lifetime of this Parliament. That is criticism No. 1. Criticism No. 2 is that, if we want to reform the delivery of health services at community level to make them more accountable and efficient—no hon. Member would be
296
against that principle—two things must be done. First, managers must be allowed to manage; the Government must not spend their time interfering politically. Secondly, managers must be set budgets that allow them to plan.
Every year, the Government of the day suddenly announce—pre-Christmas or post-new year—extra cash to help solve whatever perceived problems arise during the winter months. We saw that in classic form with this year's flu epidemic. We all know that that happens; it is a feature of the weather and of demography. NHS managers tell us that the money is welcome and that, if only they had known that they would get it eight, 10 or 12 months ago, they could have deployed it far more efficiently and effectively. The Government need to deal with that, not with what one suspects is a high-profile, well news-managed health inquiry, chaired by the Prime Minister, which no doubt will be unveiled in glitzy fashion at No. 10 Downing street, but will not reach those whom it is intended to assist. That is the case that we are making. It is an issue of opportunity that is close to the hearts of Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: I shall certainly do so, although I want to make progress.
Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a third time. He seems to suggest simply that more money is required, not modernisation or reform. Has he read the Public Accounts Committee report, which shows enormous variation in the unit cost of standard procedures such as hip operations, and in efficiency and performance? The Government are introducing benchmarking of costs and outputs to provide more cost-effective and consistent standards of health across the country, rather than simply throwing more and more money at what is often mismanagement and bad practice. Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome that?
Mr. Kennedy: Again, we have absolutely no objection to the most cost-effective delivery of health care in the country, which must be in everyone's interest. However—I am not in any way undermining the work of the Public Accounts Committee—it must be recognised that the delivery of health care in my part of the country bears hardly any relation to the delivery of health care in, say, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) in terms of, for instance, geography, demography and other demands.
I often feel that the indices and formulae that are used do not take adequate account of geographical disparities. That has an impact not just on health but on the delivery of education, and on many other things.
One group which, in terms of "Opportunity Britain", must feel that they are being the most denied under the present Government are pensioners. They are some of the poorest and most disadvantaged members of society. Let me quote to the Minister the last Labour manifesto, in which Labour pledged that pensioners would
share in the increasing prosperity of the nation.
After three years of Labour Government, however, the percentage of national income going to pensioners has declined. That is a statement of fact.

297
Insult has been added to injury by the increase of 75p in the basic state pension. Lifetime savings of just £8,000 bar 600,000 pensioners from entitlement to income support, although their income is lower than £75 a week. Up to 700,000 pensioners who are entitled to claim income support fail to do so.
In 1998–99, there were 50,000 "excess winter deaths"—a chilling phrase—most among elderly people. That is the highest figure for many years, and is substantially higher than the figures in any comparable western country.
As a people, we should be ashamed of such statistics. There must be a substantial increase in the amount given to pensioners, and the comprehensive spending review will provide a big opportunity. Any increase should be loaded in favour of the oldest and poorest pensioners, who all too often form the same group.
I could mention many other issues, but there is not enough time for me to do so. Let me say a word about one of the most dispiriting aspects of national political dialogue. I refer to the increasing sense that there is a difference between urban Britain and rural Britain. There is no such difference. A lack of opportunity in rural Britain may take a different form from a lack of opportunity in urban Britain, but a lack of opportunity in either should be something that a Parliament is not prepared to tolerate. We are seeing too much of it.
In rural Britain in particular, the extent of deprivation and social exclusion is all too often disguised. That applies as much to the fate of the local post office as to the lack of access to decent transport. It impacts on the single mother as much it impacts on the pensioner. The Government are not doing enough, and we want more to be done. We also want aspirations and anxieties to be met in the context of the incidence of crime, and the perception and fear of crime. Before the election, it was a case of "Vote for us; more bobbies on the beat". Three years after the election—in which enough people voted for the Government—there are thousands fewer police to be deployed in our rural and urban communities. Those are the facts, and they need to be exposed.
The Government have done much that is good, and the Liberal Democrats have said that. As the Minister knows, we are frequently criticised by others—members of the Conservative party and the media—when we do so, but if we think that the Government are trying to do the right thing, why should we not say so? That is an example of sane, rational, constructive politics. What is most disappointing, however, is that although they have a benign economic scenario, a thumping House of Commons majority, a so-called official Opposition who have shown no signs of getting their act together over the first three years of the Parliament—
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Dream on.
Mr. Kennedy: The few of them who are here are dignified and distinguished representatives of a dwindling band.
Despite having all that in their favour, the Government have a poverty of ambition. What could, and should, they have done on the social justice agenda? What could, and should, they have done to make life better for pensioners?
298
What could, and should, they have done to improve our national health service? What could, and should, they have done to improve the lot of those in education in general and the tertiary system in particular?
I want us to be ambitious about our politics. The Liberal Democrats are ambitious, and we will make the case for greater opportunity—a case that finds no resonant echo in the Conservative party, still less the Government of the country.
4.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'believes that true opportunity for all requires that access to higher education should be based on merit not background; welcomes the measures the Government has implemented to widen access as part of the record increase in education spending of 8 per cent. in real terms in this year alone; and welcomes the many initiatives taken to help those in society whose needs are greatest, including an extra £950 a year for older pensioners on low incomes and a record increase in NHS spending of an extra £2 billion this year, plus 6.1 per cent. average growth year on year until 2004.'.
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) was kind enough to mention that his motion covers a wide range of subjects. Perhaps one or two matters of world interest are not covered in it—
Mr. Charles Kennedy: They are for the second motion.
Mr. Wicks: Indeed. One of my colleagues said that the motion had all the hallmarks of being written on the back of an envelope; I thought that the back of a serviette was more likely. Despite that remark, I shall treat the subject of the debate seriously.
Despite the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Government, some, though not all, of which I can address, I acknowledge that my party and his have in many respects shared in the radical tradition and ambition of the past century. Long before new Labour—indeed, 100 years or so before—there came the new Liberals, following the great schism at the end of the 19th century between the welfare Liberals and the market Liberals.
In spite of the many differences between us—I shall not be wholly conciliatory—there is a sense in which we have all been concerned about how to attack injustice and pursue a just society. That has led us to discuss issues concerning the right balance between economic prosperity and fairness and between the values of equality and liberty. It was a great liberal—Hobhouse—who reminded us in 1911:
Liberty without equality is a name of noble sound and squalid result.
Some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about some of our universities lacked the right balance between those two important values.
We have been concerned about citizenship and the balance to be struck between rights and duties. The unjust society—the motion is about justice—has been described in many ways across epochs. It varies from era to era in terms of its determinant causes and characteristics, but I always think—I say this not just to be conciliatory—that the best portrayal of injustice is still that from Sir William

299
Beveridge, a great Liberal, in his report of 1942. Sir William talked about the challenge facing our country after the second world war. In a wartime speech, he said:
Reconstruction has many sides, international and domestic. On the domestic side, one can define its aims best by naming five giant evils to be destroyed: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.
That was the agenda successfully confronted in many ways by the Attlee Government in 1945.
Much has changed in the 50 to 60 years since then. Many substantial improvements have been made in the life chances of our people, not least in their life expectancy. There is much to applaud, but, when the Government came to power in 1997, the socio-economic context was depressingly familiar in terms of rampant inequality.
There was a real sense in which Beveridge's five giants, well known in the 1940s and before the war, still stalked the land. There was want—one in three babies were born into poverty. Disease, sickness and mortality correlated with social and economic circumstance. There was ignorance—one in four or five of our adults were lacking basic numeracy and literacy skills. There was squalor—neighbourhoods were grim and desolate. There was also idleness, which is, of course, the experience of mass unemployment, with one in five households having no adult in work. We were familiar with that when we came to power, and we are seeking to deal with that agenda.
All five of those Beveridge giants are significant. All of them are interconnected. One cannot be overcome on its own—we need to overcome all of them. The connections include the fact that one third of adults without skills are on benefits. By contrast, those who have good GCSEs are able to increase their earnings by 40 per cent., compared with those who lack any qualifications. That is why, in addressing these issues, we need comprehensive strategies.
We need joined-up government. We also need the important work of the social exclusion unit, and projects such as sure start that bring together health, education and other services to help families with children in the early years. We need the Connexions service, for 13 to 19-year-olds, which involves the modern development of careers and the youth service, cutting across Departments and involving a range of professionals.
I shall focus on three of the giants that I mentioned: idleness, want and ignorance. I shall not cover all the points raised by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West, but I want to examine some of the aspects that he mentioned—employment, social security and education. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Who has the telephone? Turn it off, please.
Mr. Wicks: Madam Speaker, I am sure that it was not William Beveridge telephoning to correct my quotation. I can assure you that it was accurate in every detail.
I think that the starting point for our social policy has to be a strong economy and jobs. That is why we were not impressed by what I think many people would regard as the "pay now, probably cut later" economics of the Liberal Democrats. We had to plan for the long term, not the quick headline. Our central economic objective is to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment. We need to lock in economic stability as a platform for sustainable growth.
300
The approach is working, most notably in respect of jobs. I think many of us would regard a job as the most important social security policy of all. We have a dynamic and healthy labour market, and the number of people in jobs is the highest that it has ever been, at 27.8 million. More than 900,000 more men and women are in jobs now than in May 1997 when we took office. Claimant unemployment is the lowest that it has been for 20 years. with the claimant count of unemployed men and women down to January 1980 levels.
I do not recite those statistics to be complacent. I understand that the unemployment level is still too high and that it still affects many communities. Nevertheless, I think that our record on jobs is impressive.
Mr. Kennedy: The Minister used the phrase "pay now, cut later" to describe the Liberal Democrats' approach to economics. Although we join him in rightly criticising the boom-and-bust days that preceded this Government, it is worth placing on the record the fact that, although he and his ministerial colleagues are occasionally—indeed, regularly—somewhat dismissive of our approach to economics, the central plank of the Government's economic strategy, which has created the opportunities to do so many things, was in our manifesto but not in Labour's. I am referring to operational independence for the Bank of England.
Mr. Wicks: We thought that it was right to implement that policy, and did so at the very start. I agree that it has been a very important plank of our economic policy. What was wholly missing from the right hon. Gentleman's speech today was any notion at all of spending commitments or spending priorities. He had a wish list, but, although it would be the wish list of many of us, I heard no ideas or commitments concerning the money that would have to be raised to implement it.
I am struck by the common sense of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), with whom I have been serving on a Standing Committee for the past few weeks. He said recently:
Simply saying that we can dip into a bottomless pit of resources is not acceptable.
It is vital that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West and other Opposition Members provide basic arithmetic on spending and priorities, otherwise they offer only the economics of the playpen. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough might play a useful role in the Liberal Democrats' Front-Bench Treasury team.
In addition to increasing employment opportunities, it is a radical feature of the Government that we are doing more to make work pay. We all know the problems of dependency culture and the unemployment trap. Through a combination of the national minimum wage, the working families tax credit and child benefit, we have done a great deal to enable people who are moving from benefit into work to receive a decent income. Our policies mean that, from early next year, no one with children who is in full-time work will earn less than £214 a week. That is a major step forward.
Mr. John Bercow: The Minister speaks glibly about increasing employment opportunities, just as the pre-Budget report did, but how is the creation of

301
employment opportunities assisted by dramatically increasing the national insurance contributions of swathes of self-employed people the length and breadth of the kingdom?
Mr. Wicks: We need to cost carefully our tax and national insurance proposals and to get the balance right between the revenue that must be raised and our spending priorities. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I both speak glibly, but the fact is that, since the Labour Government took office, 900,000 more men and women have found jobs. That is a victory for those men and women, their families and communities, and it is good news for the economy. I am not being glib; I am stating a record of achievement of which many of us who remember the horrors of mass unemployment perpetrated on this country by the Conservatives are proud.
Dr. Peter Brand: I am impressed by the list of measures that the Government have taken to help people into employment. Will the Minister examine the impact of the current cut-off for therapeutic earnings, which stands in the way of people who are recovering from or who have a history of mental illness? We have to be far more flexible if we are to enable such people to gain their rightful place in the work force and the community.
Mr. Wicks: That is why we increased the level of that cut-off in the last Budget. I accept the more general point that, to enable people with learning disabilities or other forms of disability to enter the labour market if they want to, as many do, we need to provide an array of policies and support systems, some of which will operate in the field of social security.
Although I wish I had the opportunity to do so, it is not my purpose today to address in detail the issues surrounding incomes for elderly people and pensioners. There are interesting and legitimate disagreements about the package of measures available in that respect, but I should like to state one fact: during this Parliament, we have spent an additional £6.5 billion on pensioners, which is £2.5 billion more than we would have spent had we merely linked the basic state pension to earnings.
It is legitimate to argue about the pros and cons of our strategy, but no one can deny that we are spending money on the proper needs of elderly people. We are doing that in a variety of ways, for example, by providing free television licences to those aged 75 or more, which is important and targeted support because many—although not all—of our elders in their late 70s, their 80s and 90s are housebound, living alone and dependent on their television. We have increased the winter fuel allowance and provided free eye tests for the over-60s—a piece of decent social policy of which we are proud.
I acknowledge the terrible data quoted by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West about those who have died from cold in winter. Early in my career, I participated in a major research study into that topic, and I am proud to be able to claim to have written the first major study of the old and cold problem. When we need to summon the energy to do better for our country, evidence that old people—still today, I acknowledge—are cold in the winter, and sometimes lethally so, is a national
302
disgrace. By focusing on the poorest, the home energy efficiency scheme and many other measures, we are doing our utmost to address that appalling problem in terms of pensioner incomes.
Mr. Steve Webb: The Minister is very knowledgeable about these matters. Will he clarify the Government's position on the 75p pension rise? Looking back, does he think that that was the right or the wrong thing to do?
Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman and I share an academic background in social security. These are important matters and there are differences of opinion. Our priority as a Government has been to focus support on the poorest elderly people. We are doing that in different ways: partly through the income support system, with the minimum income guarantee, and partly through free television licences, a measure that focuses on the very important group of people over the age of 75. I think that that is the right priority and the right thing to do.
I repeat the fact that, over this Parliament, we shall be spending more on elderly people, particularly the poorest—many women in those elderly groups never had an occupational pension, have few savings and have been widowed—than we would have spent if we had simply index-linked the pension to wages. There is legitimate discussion about that, but no one can say that we are not spending proper amounts of money.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown rose—
Mr. Wicks: I want to talk about another subject in which I am interested—education—but I am happy to give way first.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is it not a fact that the Government have not helped the very poorest pensioners, because the minimum income guarantee means nothing unless a pensioner is claiming income support? Is it not high time that our poorest pensioners who have no other income are absolved from having to claim benefits, and receive a consolidated basic pension?
Mr. Wicks: The gap between the richest and poorest pensioners increased dramatically under the previous Government.
Mr. Bercow: That is not an answer.
Mr. Wicks: That is part of our legacy.
Miss Kirkbride: That has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Wicks: It has a lot to do with it. In 1997, we had to look at the situation confronting us. We weighed the options very carefully. We found that, after 18 years—not least because of Mrs. Thatcher's decimation of the state earnings-related pension scheme—
Mr. Bercow indicated dissent.
Mr. Wicks: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the attack on SERPS has nothing to do with the issue, he shows that he is approaching the social security question with a certain illiteracy.

303
Our judgment is that we should concentrate resources on the poorest elderly people. We are doing that in the ways that I have described. We are communicating as effectively as we can and in imaginative ways that ensure that those who are entitled to income support in old age receive it.
Although the basic priorities for our social policy are a strong economy and good jobs, much of the ability of our citizens, whatever their age, to get such jobs will depend on education, training and skills. Although that has always been so in many respects, the challenges posed by globalisation and the impact of new technologies mean that those of us who are interested in social security in the broadest sense must turn our attention to education, training and skills. That is why we have a true commitment to the notion of lifelong learning and are spending more on education.
Over this Parliament, education spending will increase by more than 16 per cent. in real terms. This year alone, following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget of a further £1 billion for education, spending on it will rise by more than 8 per cent. in real terms—the highest annual increase for more than 20 years. The right hon. Member for Ross. Skye and Inverness, West speaks as if we were not spending more on education or, for that matter, on health. The very reverse is the case.
Mr. Willis: The Minister is very selective in his statistics. Unit funding for students in further and higher education has gone down each year under this Government and is scheduled to go down right through to 2001–02.
Mr. Wicks: Unit funding for university education declined dramatically under the Conservative Government. We have rectified that because we will have no trade-off between quantity, with the increasing number of people in higher education, and quality. The hon. Gentleman is committed to further education, as I am, and knows that spending on it is at record levels. At long last we have a Government taking further education seriously, as it deserves.
Lifelong learning has to start with the early years. Some of the best preparation for our people will take place at a tender age. That is why our national child care strategy—with the development of nursery education, guaranteeing places for all four-year-olds, and the innovative sure start programme, tackling a range of issues, involving parents, and considering health, education and the family as a whole—is so important.
It is also why, despite some opposition from some forces of conservatism, our national literacy and numeracy strategy has played such an important role in our education system. Some thought that it was not necessary, but we believe that it was absolutely right and proper that the three Rs should be emphasised in our primary schools. The results show a great improvement.
In the Budget, all schools—primary and secondary—received a major boost. There is now an average extra direct grant of £40,000 for secondary schools and £9,000 for primary schools. That goes directly to the school, and that is how money should be spent.
Sir Robert Smith: Going back to nursery education, does the
304
Minister recognise the concern highlighted in a report by, I think, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology that, although it is important for young children to have access to nursery education and to an educational environment and support, we should be careful about how early we start to force literacy and numeracy on them? An important part of the first stages of educational experience is developing social skills and a sense of ease at being in the educational environment. Evidence from Europe suggests that the literacy programme can start slightly later and the children will all be at the right level later on.
Mr. Wicks: Yes, that is why we have been very careful to develop a programme that prepares the child for the literacy and numeracy strategy at primary school. The Government recognise the need to get the balance right, but there can be no excuse at all for allowing some children to reach the age of 11 without basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills. None of us want that for our children and none of us should want it for any child.
The learning and skills councils for which we are currently legislating are another important part of our education strategy. They replace the training and enterprise councils and the funding councils and will have charge nationally and locally of all post-16 education and training, bringing into one funding scheme about £6 billion to benefit about 6 million learners and responding to the demands of the economy and the needs of companies and individuals. It is a revolution and it shows our commitment to the skills agenda.
University education was a focus of the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West. Higher education has to be paid for. More and more of our children now have the opportunity to go to university. The proportion is now a third and rising, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set a target of 50 per cent.
As the Dearing report recognised, universities were seriously underfunded, with a drop of 36 per cent. in unit funding between 1989 and 1997, and a further cut planned for the next two years. We had to address those facts, and we did so through our policies on tuition fees and loans. However, we have always ensured that students from less-well-off families do not have to pay fees. Already more than 40 per cent. of students are exempt from making any contribution, and that proportion will go up to 50 per cent. from next year because we are raising the contribution threshold. I repeat that poor students do not pay fees. We believe that the loans system is fair, in terms of the balance between the student, his or her family and the taxpayer. We have recently introduced a package of measures to support mature students, who can have some especial difficulties in accessing education.
Recently, the Sutton Trust published a report that touches on some recent controversy. It included data on access to universities and showed that we must do more to ensure that all of our talented young people, whatever their background, get the chances they deserve in higher education. It surely is not satisfactory that only 13 per cent. of young people from lower socio-economic groups enter our top 13 universities, despite making up 50 per cent. of the school population. I heard nothing in the speech by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West that would rectify that problem. We are determined to rectify it.

305
Nor can it be right that at the beginning of the 21st century, not the 20th, someone from a private school is nearly 30 times more likely to get into higher education than someone from a disadvantaged background.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Has the Minister anything to tell the House about the relationship between, for example, young people's willingness to live away from home and access to higher education? Precedents in a community also have a tremendous influence on that access.
Mr. Wicks: I certainly recognise that in order to understand the data that I have cited, a variety of causes will be significant, and they may vary from one community to another. A range of matters needs to be addressed, including the aspirations of our children from poor areas, particularly when no one in the family or local community has been to university, and the schools' aspirations for their most able children. Also, there are of course implications for the universities, as has been highlighted recently.
Mr. Bercow: Although the Minister is right to want to increase the proportion of state school pupils who go into higher education, does he agree with the Secretary of State for Health, who has made it clear that he intends to relax the access criteria to medical schools specifically in order to enable more state school products to go to them?
Mr. Wicks: Products are young men and women, and our position is that every young man and woman of high ability should have an equal and fair chance to enter our universities and medical schools. That is why the debate now needs to move on to the positive measures that can be taken. We have already provided £10 million for opportunity bursaries of up to £1,000 from the autumn of 2001, aimed at young students from disadvantaged backgrounds. That will operate initially as a pilot scheme in excellence in cities areas, building on the schemes already in place in higher education institutions. We are also funding summer schools, special provision for gifted and talented pupils in inner cities, and other measures to link state schools with colleges and universities.
Much can be done and many of our universities are doing much at the moment. We want to encourage that development. It is important that the row over the issue now moves on to a positive agenda for action for the benefit of the most able boys and girls, whether from the state or private sector, whether rich or poor. That should now be the agenda.
Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. In light of his comment about the Government's wish to attract more students into higher education, I want to repeat the question that I put at Question Time a month ago. Will he make a categoric statement at the Dispatch Box now, ruling out any future use of differential fees, as requested by the Russell group and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals? Higher education would be out of the reach of many students if they had to pay real-terms costs.
Mr. Wicks: I am about to move on to that topic. The hon. Gentleman is prescient—the issue was raised by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West when he quoted from representatives of the Russell group.
Miss Kirkbride: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Wicks: Not yet, as I want to answer the question. I have an old-fashioned sense of order; indeed, our policies are built on good old-fashioned values. I shall give way to the hon. Lady later.
Many students and their parents have been worried by recent press reports about top-up fees. I am happy to reassure them that the Government's policy has not changed. Indeed, we have legislated to prevent universities from levying differential fees. We are monitoring the charges that institutions make to ensure that differential fees are not being levied. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reiterated that policy recently when he said:
Anything that discourages open access to all universities and their departments in this country is, in my view, wrong. Those who argue for substantial differentiation in fees have to answer where the resources would come from to pay for those on low incomes to enter university departments, given that the top-up fee that they were levying would have to pay for that and for any improvement in quality.—[Official Report, 23 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 1106.]
That sets out our position absolutely clearly.
Miss Kirkbride: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am sure that the House would like more state school pupils to go to university, although it must be borne in mind that more used to go under the old grammar school system. However, the House would also be interested to know whether the Minister backs the Chancellor over the controversial case of Laura Spence. Interestingly, the Minister has not mentioned that case yet.
Laura Spence did not get into the medical school of Magdalen college, Oxford, where the Government have limited the number of places available to five. The Chancellor said that that was wrong, but the people who got the precious five places all had the same academic qualifications as Laura Spence. Some were women, some were from ethnic minorities and some came from comprehensive schools.
Will the Minister back the Chancellor and tell the House which of those students should have been deprived of a precious place at Magdalen college so that Laura Spence could go?
Mr. Wicks: The difficulty is that disproportionate numbers of students with very good A-levels come from private schools. I wish them good luck, but the reasons for that are easily understood. Although about two thirds of our high-achieving A-level students come from state schools, those percentage differences are not reflected in the intakes to our top universities. That is the issue that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done so much to highlight. If we are to build an equal society, we must tackle that problem for the sake of our young people.
Miss Kirkbride: It is class war.
Mr. Wicks: It is not a matter of class war but of the common-sense revolution that is taking place in the way we treat each and every young person in the country. We support that common-sense revolution.

307
I apologise for the fact that I have not addressed all the important issues. I would have had much to say on health care, for example, but I will say merely that I hope that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West and his colleagues will recognise that the recent expenditure on the NHS announced by the Government is a record investment in a major institution close to the heart of British men and women. We are finding the resources but, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who, on health care, seemed to be among the forces for conservatism, to coin a phrase, we do not think that it is a question of pouring money into the health service without thinking through how the patient and the public will get as much as possible from every extra health pound that is spent. That is why, perfectly properly, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister are leading a review to find out how we can develop structures for the health service that enable that money to be spent properly.
At the outset of my address, I referred, rather generously, to the fact that the Liberals and Labour have shared a radical tradition over the past 100 years. We have been pushing that radical agenda in government, building on the values of the British people and their concerns about fairness, and trying to balance economic prosperity with social justice. However, although we are proud of our record of achievement, I repeat that no one can be complacent. Much has been done but so much more needs to be done. Those of us in the House who have the honour to serve our constituents and meet them regularly in our advice surgeries know that in all our communities, much pain and suffering needs to be addressed. The agenda is clear—there is much to be done.
Our vision is clear, as well as our agenda. Ultimately, it is a simple vision, which decent men and women have shared over the years. Each and every citizen has equal rights and duties. Each and every citizen, whatever their background, deserves decent opportunities. That is what this debate allows us to say, and that is what the Government are doing. This is an important debate—no debate could be more important.
4.36 pm
Mr. John Bercow: As the Minister said, the Liberal Democrats' motion is somewhat all-embracing. It refers, as observers of the debate should be aware, to education, taxation, pensions, health care and access to services in urban and rural communities. I feel sure that it was only an oversight on the part of the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip that there is no reference to kindness to animals, but no doubt that will make an appearance on a future Liberal Democrat Opposition day.
I always look forward with eager anticipation, beads of sweat upon my brow, to the contributions of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). He is an agreeable cove, and he has fine parliamentary jousting skills, so I say with the greatest respect that it is a pleasure to engage in debate with him today. However, the motion tabled by Liberal Democrat Members and the speech that the right hon. Gentleman devoted to it were notable more for their breadth than their depth. It was, if I may say so, the scattergun approach—the broad brush. The right hon. Gentleman could not be accused of an over-intense focus on any one issue.
308
It must be said, however, that the proposition of the Liberal Democrats, at least in terms of the meat of some of the issues that they quite properly raised in the motion and the right hon. Gentleman's opening speech, compare favourably with the stance of the Government. The House should be aware of just how risible is the Government's amendment to the motion. Specifically, the Government apparently think it necessary and desirable, in an amendment, to state—wait for it—that
access to higher education should be based on merit not background …
That, of course, is true, but it is blindingly obvious that it is unnecessary to make any such statement in an amendment. It is an utterly banal observation. There is no dispute about it—of course we agree that merit should be the determinant of access to opportunity and to higher education. It does not require to be stated in a Government amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: Not just yet, but I will happily give way to the hon. Lady in due course.
That is a banal observation. It is like saying that, when it is sunny, one ought to wear a hat to protect one's head, and when it is raining, it would be a good idea to carry an umbrella. It is blindingly obvious. What we on the Opposition Benches know, however, is that a political party should be in business unashamedly to support the pursuit of excellence, to underscore the important principle of academic freedom and to recognise that admissions tutors—not Ministers in Her Majesty's Government—are best placed to make judgments about the people whom they admit to their institutions.
I want to focus somewhat on the on-going row—believe me, it will be on-going—about elitism, admissions policies and the behaviour of the so-called privileged. This fight was picked by the Chancellor. It was outrageous for a senior Minister to pick that fight, but the battle has been well and truly joined.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), made no discernible reference to the conduct of Oxford or of Cambridge university. I have considerable respect and, in the light of recent events, great sympathy for the vice-chancellor of Oxford university, Dr. Colin Lucas. I have no vested interest in the matter; I do not know the distinguished vice-chancellor. To my knowledge, I have not met him. I did not go to Oxford university. As some people will be aware, I hail from the wing of the Conservative party that pays a mortgage and buys its own furniture. I went to a comprehensive school and to Essex university, but I have the greatest admiration for Oxford university and, as I said, great sympathy for the vice-chancellor of that institution, who has been assailed by a wholly improper propaganda campaign from the Government.
What did Dr. Lucas say in the run-up to the debate? Referring to his institution, he said:
We cannot compromise on education, if we are to remain a world class university.
He is absolutely right to say that. No matter what the pressure, no matter how much cajolery, no matter the extent of the threats to that institution emanating from

309
Ministers, he and his admissions tutors must continue to make judgments based on their assessment of who would most obviously benefit from an Oxford university education.
There was some chuntering among Government Back Benchers when my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) observed that more state school pupils went to Oxford and Cambridge universities when there were more grammar schools. Labour Members—presumably showing the same ignorance of the facts as that displayed by the Chancellor in the recent saga—dissented from that proposition. Let me offer the Minister some facts on the matter.
In 1970—Oh, I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who is herself the privileged product of a private education, regards the facts on grammar school access to Oxbridge as an appropriate occasion on which to yawn. She and other members of the Government will have to hear the facts. In 1970—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady says that she is not a product, but a person. If she wants to pick a semantic argument, I am happy to accept that amendment. The term "state school product", at which she cavilled when I used it in an intervention, is perfectly commonplace. If she is not familiar with it, that is her problem—not mine. If she wants to be referred to as a person, I am happy to oblige her.
In 1970, 60.4 per cent. of people going to Oxford university were from state schools, and a substantial proportion were from grammar schools. The figure for Cambridge university was 61.3 per cent. During the ensuing three decades, there was a marked deterioration. Nevertheless, over the past five years, there has been a substantial improvement in the proportion of state school pupils admitted both to Oxford and to Cambridge. It is genuinely a source of regret to me that the Minister failed to mention that in his remarks.
The hon. Gentleman—the product, I believe, of an independent education, although I do not hold that against him—is normally a very fair-minded fellow. It saddened me that he did not take the opportunity to say something about the improvement in the performance of Oxford and Cambridge in relation to state school access to those institutions. He should have done so—especially in the light of the monstrous remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 May, that it was time that Oxford university opened its doors to people from all backgrounds and, indeed, opened its doors to women. What breathtaking ignorance. Does the Chancellor not know the facts? Is he not aware of the reality? Did he not pick up the phone and inquire? If he had done so, he would have discovered that 50 per cent. of the people going to Oxford university are women. That is pretty well a reflection of the composition of our population. However, the Minister said nothing in defence of the magnificent efforts of Oxford and Cambridge or to admit that the Chancellor's remarks were a disgrace.
I had hoped that the Minister would say more about those institutions' efforts in their summer schools to encourage more children from state schools to go into higher education, and specifically to go to Oxford. He certainly did not say anything about the target schools and Oxford access scheme. It is a worthwhile scheme that is being pursued with great vigour and commitment by
310
professionals dedicated to the enhancement of opportunity for children from all types of background and from the length and breath of the United Kingdom. He did not say anything about the teachers in service scheme, which has been operating since 1998 in respect of Oxford university, or about the university's new website on chemistry. What a dismal performance.
The Minister seemed reluctant—just as the Prime Minister was—to endorse the inflammatory terminology deployed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He lacked the guts and forthrightness simply to say in unmistakable terms and on the record that the Chancellor had got it wrong and that he should have the decency to apologise. I am happy to admit that I have made mistakes from time to time. I have even admitted to them occasionally in the privacy of this Chamber on the basis that it would probably be a state secret if I did so.
Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if one feels that some of one's aspirations are not as easy to achieve as one thought, an alternative strategy is to create a totally artificial windmill and then to tilt at it?
Mr. Bercow: As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. His observation carries particular weight because he known in the House for his fair-mindedness. He does not normally rush to score party political points, which is something that I rarely do, as you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is particularly fair minded and he is right. The Government are in a mess and they are now seeking to divert attention.
We should be clear about the record of Ministers on this subject. On 27 May, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, whose job appeared temporarily to have been appropriated by the Chancellor, agreed with the Chancellor's remarks and endorsed what he had said. On 2 June—a week later, vindicating Harold Wilson's observation about a week being a long time in politics—the Secretary of State said something rather interesting. He remarked:
I'm simply very keen that having debated for a week we are able to broaden the agenda which is, unless you raise standards and expectations, then the issue of access becomes more difficult.
A certain interpretation facility is required in that context. I think that the gist of the point that he made in a slightly circumlocutory way was, "The Chancellor got it wrong; it is all very embarrassing; he has splattered himself, myself and other Ministers with egg and it would therefore be useful if we could hurry on to talk about something else." The Secretary of State is a subtle and sophisticated fellow and he certainly did not put it in such crude and bald terms. However, we can take it that that is what he meant.
Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to a dismal performance, but he has clearly prepared his speech on the basis that the debate would be dominated by one education institution and one particular person. However, both the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and I talked about matters more generally. Does the hon. Gentleman have anything to say about education for all our children or is he just obsessed with education for the few?
Mr. Bercow: I am obsessed with education for all our children, and the Minister need be in no doubt that I shall

311
come to that. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Minister for his sedentary advice on how I should make my speech, but, on the whole, I am happy to follow my own counsel. I make no apology for devoting considerable attention to the Chancellor's remarks, as the Government have not been prepared to admit error, apologise or progress the debate. I hope that Members on both sides of the House recognise that people are turning away from politics and becoming cynical about it because they feel that we always insist on being right and are never prepared to acknowledge error. To be fair, Liberal Democrat Members have a relatively good record on that and, from time to time, take a much more reasonable approach. However, the Government never admit to error on anything which, frankly, is a mistake on their part.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: As the Chancellor wanted to raise these issues, would it not have been better if he had said that Oxford and Cambridge are two of many good universities and that people with good A-level grades should expect to get offers from several universities and pick the most appropriate one for them? He should then have said that many universities have access courses and all the things that my hon. Friend has talked about. Finally, he should have said that, at certain large schools, few pupils get A-levels in maths or science. We should all concentrate on those people as they have potential and need our help so that they can go on to make applications.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is correct. The biggest problem is encouraging people in the state sector to consider the possibility of going to Oxford or Cambridge. The Minister nodded at that important point but, unfortunately, has failed to recognise the weakness of the Government's position on the matter. He is a fair-minded man, so I ask him how the prospects of people in state schools applying to our finest universities will be enhanced if a senior member of the Government attacks and vilifies those institutions and claims that they are ridden with snobbery, are inherently biased and do not care about people from state school backgrounds? How will that encourage state school pupils to consider applying to our finest institutions?
Before the hon. Gentleman ruminates further on that point, he should be aware that many students at Oxford university reacted to the Chancellor's remarks with horror and fury because they could see how much damage they would do at grass roots. On 28 May, a Downing street spokesman—unnamed, of course, although the first name "Alastair" and the surname "Campbell" readily trip off the tongue—told The Mail on Sunday:
Despite everything that has been said, Gordon did not tell Tony that he was going to make an issue of Laura Spence. The whole thing spun out of control. Tony feels it looks as though we are going back to the bad old days when Labour was in the trenches fighting the class war. We've left that sort of thing behind us but Gordon doesn't seem to have got the message and Tony has reminded him of it.
I am glad that, without any public demonstration or apology, the Prime Minister has, behind the scenes, spoken to the Chancellor sotto voce and informed him of the error of his ways. It is time that that was reflected in a change in the Government's public attitude and policy. The same might be said of Baroness Jay. Frankly, it was monstrous of her to claim that she went from a pretty standard grammar school to Oxford, when the school has made it clear that she did nothing of the kind.
312
We are concerned about standards, access and opportunity. However, access and opportunity have been damaged by the Government's determination to reignite the class war and by their blinkered and stupid policy of introducing tuition fees and abolishing the maintenance grant. On 14 April 1997, the then Leader of the Opposition said:
Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees in higher education.
That was followed up 10 days later by the then shadow Foreign Secretary who, on Leeds university student radio, said:
We are quite clear that tuition costs must be picked up by the state.
However, 100 days after the statement by the then Leader of the Opposition and 90 days after the statement by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment himself came to the House to announce the introduction of tuition fees.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House whether the Conservative party was, and remains, in favour of the introduction of tuition fees?
Mr. Bercow: The Conservative party did not go into the election supporting the introduction of tuition fees, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. There was a bipartisan agreement to establish a review of the financing of higher education, to be undertaken by Ron Dearing. The difference between the position of the Conservative Opposition and that of the Government is that we respected the Dearing package as a whole. The hon. Gentleman, who is well informed, will know that the Dearing report recommended the continuation of the maintenance grant whereas the Government, to their eternal discredit, cherry picked. They opted for the introduction of tuition fees but, against Sir Ron Dearing's advice, they abolished the maintenance grant, greatly damaging the prospects and affordability of education for the poorest people in our community.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has given a fair description of the situation that surrounded the Dearing report. However, will he remind the House whether the Conservative party, following that report, was in favour of the introduction of tuition fees—yes or no?
Mr. Bercow: I thought that I had made the position abundantly clear to the hon. Gentleman. I said that we accepted the Dearing package. That is a demonstrable fact. It is on the record. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), has repeated the commitment on a number of occasions. Why the issue is causing the hon. Gentleman's brow to furrow is a source of some mystery to me.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: As well as the introduction of the charge, does my hon. Friend agree that to call it a university fee that students have to pay when the moneys do not go to the university is one of the worst abuses of language of which the Government are guilty? Should it not be referred to as the university tax? If the charge is to continue, should not the moneys at least be given to the universities so that what students pay the universities and their departments have to spend?
Mr. Bercow: It certainly is a tax, and my hon. Friend is right to point that out. However, it is not unusual for

313
the Government to distort and pervert language for their own purposes. I can assure my hon. Friend that the competition as to which is the worst example is a hot one.
The Government have failed on education spending, despite the gloss that the Minister put upon the subject. The reality is that, in the lifetime of this Parliament, the Government will spend 4.7 per cent. of national income on education, whereas the previous Government spent 5 per cent.
The Minister enjoined me to talk about other matters, and I am happy to do so. I make no apology for dwelling on education. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Prime Minister said that his key priority was education, education, education. The right hon. Gentleman probably thought that by saying it three times he could cover up for the fact that he had not one remotely interesting or novel idea to contribute to the debate.
Mr. Wicks: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's figures on education spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. By the year 2001–02, it will be 4.9 per cent. of GDP. If training is added, it will be 5 per cent.
Given the hon. Gentleman's obvious purported concern about quality in education, why is it that unit funding between 1989 and 1997 fell by a massive 36 per cent?
Mr. Bercow: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. First, I think that he is wrong about the figures. By the end of this Parliament, the Government will spend a lower proportion of GDP on education than the Conservative Government. If he wishes to correspond with me about the detailed movement of the figures in relation to unit costs, I shall be happy to oblige him. I want to focus on the big picture, and he is right to encourage me to do so. I want to focus, for example, on the further betrayal of grammar schools. The hon. Gentleman knows—[Interruption.] I will deal with his point. He must exercise what degree of restraint he is able to muster as I develop my case. I hope that he will be as patient in listening to me as I was—I was extremely patient—in listening to his fascinating animadversions.
I want to focus on—
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: No, not at the moment. I want to make some progress. Members are complaining and want me to talk about other issues. I shall be delighted to do so, but I must have the time to devote to that purpose.
On 7 February 1997, the then shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment said that a Labour Government posed no threat to grammar schools,
to their continuance or to their ethos, or to their quality.
That statement was followed up by the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, in a letter to the electors of Wirral, South in the by-election campaign. He stated:
A Labour Government will not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee.
Since then, they have put on to the statute book what is a one-way ratchet, allowing for the destruction of grammar schools, but not permitting their creation.
314
The Government's record is bad, but the really guilty men are sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They are in a hopeless position from which to excoriate the Government for their record. Let us turn to the observations of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). What has he said on the future of grammar schools? I remind him, in case he is suffering from a convenient amnesia, that, in an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the hon. Gentleman argued that the Government should
legislate to remove—
as he put it—
grammar schools.—[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 376.]
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), his sidekick, who I think is giving the House the pleasure of a winding-up speech tonight, observed on 1 September 1999:
Liberal Democrats nationally are opposed in principle to selection for secondary education.
The hon. Gentleman is cheering enthusiastically at that proposition. In that case, let me say that some clear points flow from his statement. He used the word "nationally". Does he understand that it is important for observers of the debate correctly to interpret Liberal Democrats' use of language? One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out what that means. The get-out clause in the hon. Gentleman's observation is, "That is what we are pontificating about at national level, but what local Liberal Democrats say and do is an entirely different matter." Is that what he means?
What does the hon. Gentleman say to his Liberal Democrat colleagues, including the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—
Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: I will in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman contains himself. The choice is his. If he behaves himself, I will give way and if he does not, I will not.
The hon. Gentleman should tell me what his attitude is to the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington, for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), for Colchester (Mr. Russell), for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). Why do I mention those hon. Members? The answer is simple: they have grammar schools in their constituencies. Discovering from those hon. Members whether they support the retention of grammar schools in their areas is more difficult than someone who is not a dentist extracting a tooth from someone's mouth. Those people become Trappist monks in those circumstances. They are not prepared to tell us whether they support the retention or the abolition of those institutions. We all know that the Liberal Democrats specialise in chameleon politics. We all know that they say different things at different times in different places to different people for different purposes, but that is hitting a new low.
At least the Government's position is just about coherent. It is to say, "We will put on to the statute book regulations that allow for the destruction of grammar schools, but Ministers themselves will not soil their hands by getting involved in campaigns. What local Labour Members do is a matter for them." The Liberal

315
Democrats' position appears to be for the national party directly to contradict what the local party or Member of Parliament might do. That is extraordinary.
What do the Liberal Democrats say about the explosion of red tape in our schools? Do they think that it is objectionable that schools have faced a further 2,468 regulations over the past 12 months? If they do believe that it hampers the efforts of teachers and of governors to advance the cause of educational standards, why is it that that did not merit even a brief mention in the speech by the leader of the Liberal Democrats?
What do the Liberal Democrats believe about the Government's ridiculous politically correct policy of seeking artificially to reduce school exclusions by a fixed target of one third, irrespective of the seriousness of the bad behaviour that might necessitate, in the view of the professionals, the exclusion of pupils from schools? Upon that subject, there is an extraordinary and untypical reticence from the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats aspire to be a party of government. It seems an improbable prospect but, if that is their aspiration, they ought to have something to say about a key policy of real concern to head teachers, teachers and governors.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has unveiled a common-sense Conservative policy to tackle the problem of rank indiscipline in large numbers of schools across the country, and he is receiving support from teachers and parents and, indeed, from teachers unions. I am not averse to receiving support from time to time from teachers trade unions, when we are pioneering sensible policies and they want to join forces with us.
Why did the Liberal Democrats not say a little more about the appalling failure of the Government's policies on the new deal for lone parents and the new deal for young people? What are those policies doing to advance the cause of opportunity in our society? I hope that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Croydon, North, is aware that, of those who have gone to interview under the new deal for lone parents scheme promoted by the Government, only 4.5 per cent. have so far secured jobs—that is, 20,590 out of 454,920.
What do the Liberal Democrats think about that? What do they think about the failure of the new deal for young people? Of those who have gone through the scheme so far, 58 per cent. have ended up back on benefits. The scheme is also failing businesses, increasing numbers of which have withdrawn from it, complaining about its bureaucratic burden and administrative complexity.
What do the Liberal Democrats say about the way in which the scheme has failed other unemployed people—those who have been unemployed for long periods, who need help and deserve support, who could benefit from an active programme of public assistance but have been denied such help by the Government?
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I apologise for the fact that I had to slip out of the Chamber for a moment. I gather that the hon. Gentleman has been making characteristically pertinent remarks about my contribution. If I had gone through all the topics on which he wanted me to comment, in the detail that he demands, I would have made an even longer speech than his.
Mr. Bercow: I am happy to concede that the right hon. Gentleman must be the judge of his own speech. I said
316
genuinely at the start that I have always had great respect and affection for him, so I will not quibble with him about that. He is entitled to make his own speech, but I thought that some of the points that I am making about Government policy and the weaknesses in it were worthy of a mention by someone occupying his high office. I accept that it is for the right hon. Gentleman to make a judgment about the points that he wants to develop.
The new deal for young people has failed the taxpayer, costing thousands upon thousands of pounds for every place. It is failing in the training and education option—
Mr. Wicks indicated dissent.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position through most of my speech, and he now shakes his head in a bizarre fashion, ignoring the fact that, having gone through the training and education option of the new deal for young people, participants are twice as likely not to get a job at the end of it as they are to get a job. Only about 16 per cent. of the entrants to the scheme end up with qualifications.
The scheme is failing in the north, where it is most needed, and succeeding slightly better in the south, where it is less needed. The whole thing is a mess. The Government have got it wrong. The scheme is indiscriminate and badly judged, and it is not delivering.
Mr. Wicks: I was shaking my head because my head tends to do that when I listen to nonsense. We have heard much nonsense about the new deal. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, at a human level, when, as I do, one speaks to the young men and women who have had an opportunity through the new deal—there is one in my office—one sees the benefits for young people, which will last throughout their lifetimes. The economic impact on the individual and on our economy is vast. The hon. Gentleman should be more generous about an extremely successful scheme.
Mr. Bercow: I do not know to which young people the Minister is referring. The number of letters that I receive from around the country from young people who have gone on the new deal and have found it miserably disappointing exceeds the number of letters that I receive about any other single subject. As my personal assistant can testify, like other Members of Parliament, I receive a very large mailbag indeed.
I politely suggest to the Minister that he ought at least to be aware that many people feel let down. The Government engaged in a great deal of hype about the scheme. People were led to believe that they would obtain sustained and unsubsidised jobs at the end of it. The Prime Minister, who repeatedly makes mistakes on the subject at Question Time, about which I have corresponded with him, does not seem to recognise that the great majority of people are not getting into sustained, unsubsidised jobs. Many people get jobs, which are usually subsidised, for approximately 13 weeks. They subsequently go through the revolving door of benefit dependency all over again. The Minister should know the facts. If he does not, it is a disgrace; if he does, he should be sufficiently candid to acknowledge them.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to be ungenerous to the Government.

317
In their first year, they had a commendable record of getting young people off the long-term unemployed register and back to work. Three times as many people per month went back to work before the new deal was introduced as afterwards. Surely the new deal is a busted flush. The Minister should consider why it fails young people.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is correct; the figures clearly demonstrate that long-term youth unemployment fell at a faster rate between April 1993 and May 1997, under the stewardship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) as Chancellor of the Exchequer, than under this Government. The Minister should know that.
To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they made reasonable points about pension provision and the way in which the Government have let down many elderly people. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West spoke with great sincerity and I sympathised with much of what he said. However, he did not refer to some of the Government's more damaging actions. For example, their decision to abolish tax credits has been costly to many poor pensioners. The abolition of the widows bereavement allowance for 60 to 65-year-olds has been expensive and painful. The abolition of private medical insurance for those over 65 has been damaging. The Government who said that they wanted to scrap means-testing are increasing it.
The Chancellor, when in opposition, said as long ago as 1993 that it was his ambition to end means-testing for pensioners. However, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has regularly observed, means-testing is increasing and the Government now acknowledge that it will increase further in future. They expect the proportion of pensioners who depend on income support to increase from one in five to one in three in the next 50 years. That is a serious problem, which requires attention. It needs more than the Government's smug self-satisfaction about what, to date, constitutes a mixed record at best.
The savings ratio has dramatically declined. That has imposed real pressures, of which the Government seem unconscious. The policies on social exclusion are not nearly as well developed as the Minister would like us to believe. Two years ago, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—spoke about a proliferation of programmes that were insufficiently co-ordinated. Two years later, circumstances in health care have not markedly improved.
The Minister must know about the huge numbers of people, of all political persuasions, throughout the country who believe that they have to wait too long to get on a waiting list, that they have to struggle to see a consultant, and that they are not guaranteed maximum waiting times. He must know that the health service is creaking under the most unbearable strain from the Administration. Yet the Minister displays only insouciance and great satisfaction with the Government's achievements to date. The health service's predicament is serious. I receive letters all the time—as, I am sure, do Liberal Democrat Members—from people who do not care much about politics but care a great deal about the health service.
318
Some of the letters come from people who work in the health service. We meet health service staff all the time and they say that the pressures are worse than at any other time in their professional lives. I accept that pressures have always been great. That was true when my party was in power. I do not claim that we got it 100 per cent. right; it would be absurd and arrogant to make such an assertion. However, it is foolish for the Minister to behave as though Government policy does not have the fundamental weaknesses that people across the country pick up.
I shall deal with transport, which is relevant given that the Liberal Democrat motion, perfectly reasonably, refers to access to services in urban and rural communities. However, it does not refer to the breathtaking increases fuel duty that have been suffered during the past three years and the damage that those policies cause. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will mention that in winding up for the Liberal Democrats. I found it worrying in preparing for the debate to observe that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—who, sadly, is not in his place—said:
I fully intend to support the Government on the principle of the escalator.—[Official Report, 6 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 844.]
He said that the fuel escalator was a market-minded method of improving behaviour.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who I discern is also not in his place, suggested on 27 April this year that our European competitors should raise their transport taxes to create a level playing field. He did not think that our taxes were too high; he complained—this is a rarity indeed—that the transport and fuel tax rates obtaining in European Union countries were too low. That is an extraordinary proposition, but the Liberal Democrats are all over the place on such matters.
In a welcome intervention on 9 June 1999, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that Liberal Democrat traffic tax policies were "unpopular with the public" and "unlikely to be effective" in combating climate change. That was a welcome outburst of frankness and candour from the hon. Gentleman, but it is intriguing that that was not even an example of Front Benchers disagreeing with Back Benchers. Those hon. Gentlemen are all Front-Bench spokesmen for the Liberal Democrats, but that is not a remarkable state of affairs because, so far as I can tell, virtually every Liberal Democrat Member is a member of the Front-Bench team. No particularly competitive test is involved in getting on to the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, but it would be helpful if there were a little joined-up thinking between right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on those Benches, given that they have the audacity to propose an all-embracing motion that criticises the Government, and implicitly criticises us, even though a lacuna has been revealed in their own thinking.
The Government's record is frankly abysmal, and the Liberal Democrats are not well placed to criticise it in the light of the fact that they want to tax, spend and borrow more, and the Government probably bow only to the representatives on the Liberal Democrat Benches in terms of political correctness. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West rightly said that it is wrong to criticise institutions on the basis of one case, but he did not say whether he thought that a general attack on the behaviour of those institutions was justified. I had hoped that he might be prepared to support the magnificent

319
efforts in which two of the finest universities in the country are engaged to improve state school access to them. Regrettably, he did nothing of the kind.
The fact is that on education, the treatment of pensioners and the conduct of transport policy—not to mention the attitude to this country's future in Europe and the fact that we can best maximise opportunity through free trade, not federalism; co-operation, not coercion; and a Europe of nation states, not a single European state—neither the Government nor the Liberal Democrats are well placed.
The Government are getting it wrong, but I regret that the Liberal Democrats are fulfilling the Home Secretary's description of them. Although they may be perfectly agreeable individuals in private company, those characters are the scavengers of British politics. They do not adhere to a fixed position. They do not know the meaning of the word "principle". They are prepared to say wholly different things at different times in different places to different people for different purposes. They are not credible challengers to the Government
The Conservative Opposition—committed to commonsense policies in education, health, social security, transport and in the conduct of international relationships—are the proper challengers to the Government. I look forward to the day when we remove the Minister from the Treasury Bench and my right hon. and hon. Friends readily take his place.
5.19 pm
Mr. Phil Hope: The debate about elitism and access to higher education that has taken place in the press is really about fundamental values. It is about how we can raise standards throughout the country, and about ensuring that there is equality of opportunity.
Too many young people in my constituency leave school at 16 without adequate qualifications—without achieving the potential of which we all know they are capable—and not enough go on to further or higher education. In the 42-minute speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), we heard not a word about the divisiveness that featured in 18 years of Tory Government. We heard nothing about the underfunding in those 18 Tory years, nothing about the under-achievement of those 18 Tory years, and not a word to defend a track record that—in view of what my constituency has inherited—I can only describe as appalling. Young people have simply not achieved what they are capable of achieving.
I believe that we must tackle the problem of elitism by raising standards, and raising the expectations of young people in a comprehensive education. We must widen access to further education through colleges, and by ensuring that universities do more to reach out to under-represented groups.
I want to focus on the issue of standards. Unless there is a massive increase in the opportunities presented to young people from a range of backgrounds and neighbourhoods, we cannot offer lifelong learning and access to higher skills—services that are needed for individuals, and for the success of local economies.
I have an image of a pyramid. If we want to raise the top of the pyramid to achieve greater success, we must increase the base: more young people must be drawn into
320
the learning economy, into skills and development and into gaining qualifications. Having begun, young people can move higher and higher up the pyramid, and can eventually achieve the best result.
The Liberal Democrat motion starts by being ambitious about equal opportunities in Britain and raising standards, but then peters out into a shopping list of things that the Liberal Democrats would like to happen. That misses the point. The point is that we need a fundamental root-and-branch change, at local level. Our education institutions, our local councils and our communities must play an active role in raising expectations and delivering what people want in their communities.
I want to demonstrate that, when people are brought together and the circumstances are viewed holistically and comprehensively, change can be achieved. I shall describe what we are achieving in Corby, with a Labour Government, a Labour county council and a Labour borough council.
Let us consider a person's life. A person is born and then becomes a child, and subsequently, perhaps, a student. That person then goes into the workplace. At every step along the way, the Government are endeavouring to inject resources, ideas and innovation into the system, in order to raise standards and give people a better chance.
For under-eights we have the sure start programme in Corby. It is delivering opportunities and help to parents with very young children: it is helping them with parenting skills, education and child care generally. Children aged two and three—children who are virtually babies—are being given the best start that we can give them. Support is being given not only to children but to parents. Parents are being helped to improve their parenting skills, and are also being given the child care that they need if they are going to work.
In Corby we have the Pen Green centre, a centre of excellence recognised by the Government as a beacon. It shows how it is possible to work with parents with young children in a way that gives the children the best possible start in life.
As for primary education, we have seen astonishing results from the numeracy and literacy hours. Those changes to the school curriculum in primary schools in my constituency have raised standards to a remarkable extent. The statistics are really exciting. Teachers and governors are recognising that they are achieving more than they ever achieved before because of the new way of working in primary schools.
Moreover, we have introduced an education action zone in Corby. It is supported by the Government, who are providing £1 million per year for the next three years, with the support of local businesses, local councils, local police and the health authority, with the aim of bringing about a co-ordinated approach to raising standards in Corby. Instead of the divisiveness and competition that were so destructive during the Tory years, Corby's schools are working together. Teachers are sharing resources, ideas, training and support. Pupils are being offered a wider range of courses. Our action zone embraces every school, secondary and primary, in its endeavour to build the pyramid of success and achievement.
We can focus on information technology and giving young people computing skills. People as young as seven or eight can do things on computers that many hon.

321
Members could not achieve. We are working in partnership with parents, because not everything can be done in the classroom. Anyone who has taught, like any parent, knows that raising standards relies on help with homework, on out-of-school-hours activities, on Saturday clubs and so on. All that enhances and enriches a child's education, building the pyramid one step higher.
The Corby education action zone, like many others, is working in some of the most disadvantaged areas with some of the most challenging targets for change and educational attainment. Those will be achieved only if there is real co-operation. We need teachers who are enthusiastic about teaching, giving all they can in the long hours that they work, in partnership with parents and governors, to ensure that every child—not the few, not just one school—receives the best opportunities.
In Corby, we have taken the opportunity to create a fresh start school. We have dealt with the problem of over-provision of places by merging two schools to create a new Corby community college. I can give the Government notice now that we will apply for a specialism in arts and media at that school. With a specialism, parents can see what they want. They can say, "My child is going to a school that is special." Every school will be special. We have technology colleges and language colleges: now we look forward to having an arts and media college. Corby is famous throughout the United Kingdom for dance, and children will know that that can be enhanced and supported through the new fresh start school.
Even that is not enough. The Government's new Connexions service—for which the Minister is directly responsible—is an ambitious programme, combining careers and youth services for people aged 14 to 21. Young people with the greatest need will receive the most resources, giving them the best possible start. If they are struggling, not doing so well or having problems at home, they can have a personal adviser, a mentor to whom they can turn for help in making the transition from being young into the world of work. In that way, they can make the most of the opportunities given to them.
I hold a parliamentary youth forum in my constituency. Young people in Corby want to go places, and they are held back only by institutions that will not give them opportunities. We have to ensure that we provide them with those opportunities.
I draw to the Minister's attention the kick start programme in my constituency, a particularly innovative scheme. It involves 15-year-olds who have basically given up on school, and perhaps school has given up on them. What should we do with those young people? Kick start is a programme of social education combining the best of youth work with the best of careers guidance and support. It works with young people outside school, helping them to re-engage with what education is all about and to realise what is possible. I have presented awards to young people who had been written off by the system. After a year of intensive support and help, they are moving into Tresham institute of further education and gaining NVQ and GNVQ qualifications that they would not previously have dreamed of, far less aspired to achieving.
Connexions and kick start exemplify the kind of programme that we are putting in place to raise standards and build the pyramid of success. We have not heard
322
enough about further education—the Cinderella service in too many people's eyes. FE is critical. I am talking not about the universities, but about people who want to take vocational training. They do not seek university degrees, but training that will help them into work, or even to a university. FE colleges give opportunities for part-time work or courses and evening courses, offering access to education that simply did not exist before. If we are to achieve equal opportunities, the Government's expansion of further education, targeting people in areas of under-participation and channelling resources towards disadvantaged areas, is the best way in which to motivate—incentivise is the awful word that people use—colleges into grabbing people and getting courses going. Perhaps we will not get them into the college—which might be an institution that they would never go to—so why do we not run courses in the community? Community centres are available, enabling us to take education and learning out to those people. That, too, will enable us to build the pyramid, to bring more people into learning, success and achievement.
I am particularly pleased about the European directive that provides for time off for study or training for every 16, 17 or 18-year-old. Therefore, even those young people who decide that they want to go straight into work on leaving school at 16 have a mandatory right to one day off per week to leave the workplace and to get further education and qualifications. It is another example of the Government's action on raising standards.
At every step in a young person's life as he or she grows up—whether a three-year-old, on the sure start programme; an eight-year-old, in a numeracy hour; a 12-year-old who—thanks to an education action zone—has a new information technology programme and a new computer suite at school; or someone finding new opportunities through the Connexions service or further education—the Government are intervening to increase standards, raise qualifications and create opportunities.
Even in the rural part of my constituency, in east Northamptonshire, we are not closing small village schools. When the Tory Government were in office, 450 village schools were closed. In the past three years, under this Government, only six schools have closed. In rural areas, we are stir porting what we believe in—the value of small village schools.
I should like briefly to touch on one other aspect of equal opportunities: raising the skill levels of people at work. In my constituency, there is a particular issue—which I have raised on the Floor of the House before—about inequality in the workplace, especially as it affects temporary workers. Many people, too many of whom are young people, gain access to work through employment agencies offering, for example, a two or three-day contract to make sandwiches. Those temporary workers receive a couple of days' pay, which they may well spend over the weekend, and then go back for another couple of days' work. It is temporary work, without a career structure, development, training or opportunities.
I have been pressing the Government hard to start cleaning up the cowboy agencies, whose behaviour encourages young people to leave work without qualifications and to begin temporary work. Those young people know only that type of work. They know that they work for a couple of days, earn some cash, spend it all

323
over the weekend and then start again. Round and round they go in that cycle, without development, simply chundering round on the bottom.
I am pleased that the Government have managed to change all that. Temporary workers now have rights that they never had before. Now, under this Government, temporary workers are entitled to the same training, pension provision and pay that full-time workers in that workplace receive. We have started to create standards in the workplace that will raise people's income. It is not, however, simply about income, but about creating stability and providing a ladder of opportunity that was never there before.
When we examine the issue of equal opportunities, and the specific issue of educational opportunities, we should realise that it is not a matter of simply chucking more money at the problem. It is about determining how we can intervene at each stage in a young person's development, from birth to adulthood, to ensure that they are supported, receiving the very best and achieving their maximum potential. We also need to determine how we can help back into the system those whom it is failing, so that they get the most out of it.
I want to build on the success in my constituency of primary schools, nurseries, play groups, the secondary system and further education colleges, to ensure that every single young person in Corby and east Northamptonshire gets the best start in life. We must have an openness and transparency at every level in education. We do not want to see elitism or discrimination operating at any level. There must be open and equal access throughout the system. By offering to the many what was—under the Tory Government—available only to the few, by removing the barriers and by making opportunities, we can build the expectation that everyone, regardless of his or her background, can aspire to the very best.
5.34 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope). His speech was full of enthusiasm and commitment to his constituency, and whether or not I agree wholeheartedly with his remarks is irrelevant. His speech stands in stark contrast to the one that preceded it, that of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I hope he feels better now: his speech reminded me of banging your head against a brick wall and how good it is when you stop; the hon. Gentleman was banging his head for a long time.
I was slow to rise to speak because I had been pondering whether I represent the forces of conservatism, because my professional background is that of a teacher and I remain a staunch supporter and defender of the teaching profession, or whether I am one of the liberal elite, because I continue to support somewhat unfashionable beliefs regarding local democracy, local government and local education authorities. However, I need not have pondered my dilemma for so long, as it appears that the definition of the forces of conservatism is anyone who does not agree with the Prime Minister and the definition of the liberal elite is anyone who does not agree with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I can, therefore, proudly tell the House that I fall into both categories.
The saddest aspect of the current battle between the opposing forces of darkness is that both sides use their slogans, insults and misguided attacks to disguise the fact
324
that, despite Britain's undoubted economic success, ours is a nation that is deeply divided, one in which access to opportunity still depends to a significant extent on social background. It is not the forces of conservatism or the liberal elite that we should attack; it is the failure of successive Governments to attack social injustice and inequality.
It is no good the Leader of the Opposition stamping around the country like a skinheaded Rottweiler, baring his prejudicial teeth. He knows full well that he and his party revelled in injustice during the Tories' 18 years in office. Between 1979 and 1997, the number of people living in poverty in this country increased by 300 per cent. When the Conservatives left office, 10.7 million people lived in households receiving less than half the national average income; 3.4 million of those people were children. That is not a record of which any party leader should be proud.
One in five adults have literacy problems. Nine per cent. of children leave school without qualifications, often entering an underclass, as they have no job to go to. The speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham took 42 minutes, and the vast majority of it dealt with the elitism of the Tory party—its obsession with the few and with grammar schools, which are mentioned at every opportunity. I have to tell him that I have not wavered an inch from my fundamental belief that selection is not right. I will never demur from that position.
Had the hon. Gentleman given my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) the opportunity to speak, instead of casting him down in an appalling manner, my hon. Friend would have made it clear that Liberal Democrats as a party believe that local democracy and devolution are incredibly important. They lie at the heart of our beliefs, which is why we believed so strongly in different solutions for Scotland and Wales. It is why we are proud of our Executive in Scotland and of our colleagues in the devolved Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: While we are talking about selection based on academic ability, did the hon. Gentleman see the BBC "On the Record" programme at the weekend, on which the Conservative education spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), said that she wanted all schools to have the opportunity to select pupils on the basis of academic ability? Yesterday, however, on a programme called "Powerhouse", the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said that he was a great supporter of comprehensive schools. Does the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) perceive any consistency in the Conservatives' policy?
Mr. Willis: I have long since found the answer to that difficult question. It is clear that the common-sense revolution wants to create 24,000 free schools. Every free school would have its own admissions authority and arrangements for intake and be a wonderful Utopia. Indeed, if they wanted to select the whole caboodle, I suppose that they would be able to get away with it. The hon. Member for Buckingham talks about the Liberals being all things to all men, but if such a policy is not all things to all men, children and, I should add, women, frankly I do not know what is.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is certainly entitled to celebrate diversity and to say that he favours the

325
application of local solutions, but how does he square that belief in diversity with his remark that the Government should have legislated for the removal of grammar schools? How can he say on one hand that he is in favour of different solutions all over the country, and on the other that his only criticism of the Government on grammar schools is that they did not go far enough and should have abolished the lot by decree? He must make up his mind.
Mr. Willis: Such obsession with grammar schools is always interesting. I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman straightforwardly. Given that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and, indeed, the Prime Minister made a clear commitment in opposition that there would be no more selection, the vast majority of people voted in the election in the belief that a Labour Government would abolish selection in all schools. Labour's position was honourable, but the one that it ultimately took was a cop-out. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham on that.
However, in the Committees considering the School Standards and Framework Bill and the Learning and Skills Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath and I spoke very strongly against the flawed ballot arrangements. If one looks at the first ballot in Ripon, one sees just how flawed: 25 per cent. of parents who voted did not even send their kids to state-sector schools, yet they had a say on whether grammar school status should end. We cannot allow that to happen.
The policies espoused by the hon. Member for Buckingham very much reminded me of the previous Tory Government's—targeted at creating yet more division, inequality and inequity in education. Assisted places, grant-maintained schools and nursery vouchers may have helped a few poor families, but let us face reality: every one of those initiatives was targeted at potential middle-class Tory voters. They were for that purpose and that purpose only. Little attention was given to the mass of children in our state schools or to the lack of opportunity that many were afforded in an education system that was grossly underfunded, undervalued and constantly under attack from Tory Ministers.
The Tory Leader yesterday spoke about Labour's education policy as a
smack in the teeth for every teacher and parent.
His violent and intemperate language might please his core right-wing voters—in contrast to the baseball cap and denims at Notting Hill carnival—but it disguises the fact that the largest growth in permanently excluded pupils occurred between 1992 and 1997 when he was in the Cabinet. There were 2,910 such pupils in 1992 and 12,000 by 1997. That is what happened in our schools during Tory years.
Even now, the Leader of the Opposition has no solution to the hard-core problem of challenging behaviour, social exclusion and inequality of opportunity. Why—because it is a deep-rooted and complex problem. Rather like his recent deep-sea diving exploits, he is never prepared to look far below the surface. Simply locking those children out of our schools—out of mind, out of society—is not a solution.
Of total excluded students, 60 per cent. never return to school; 20 per cent. are already in the care of social services—already damaged, with poor self-image.
326
Children from lone parent families constitute 34 per cent. of those excluded. Ethnic minority students from an Afro-Caribbean background are four times more likely to be excluded than their white counterparts, and heaven help children with a special educational needs statement, who are seven times more likely to be excluded.
Does the Leader of the Opposition have anything to say about why those groups are being excluded in such great numbers? The answer is no, because in all the years of Tory rule there was no attempt to get to the root of the problem and find out what was happening. There was no research into why certain groups of youngsters are turned off by school and act in an antisocial way. We need that research. I hope that the Minister will commit the Government to avoiding abandoning children in sin bins in either schools or pupil referral units and to taking a more deep-seated approach.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about exclusions policy. He talked about the figures for excluded children not returning to school. Is he aware of the experience of the Zaccheus centre in Birmingham, from where the large majority of pupils return to school after some months? Does he accept—this is a matter of real concern to professionals—that a teacher who has a knife wielded at him or her by a persistently violent pupil has a right to be protected from that pupil, even if that means exclusion?
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman accused the Minister of tabling a banal amendment to our motion, and that was a banal question. No right-thinking individual believes that teachers should not be protected from violent students. Unlike him and his privileged friends, I spent my whole life in state education, not in the leafy lanes of Buckingham but working in downtown schools in Leeds and Middlesbrough with very difficult and challenging youngsters, and in 34 years I never came across a student wielding a knife—not once.
That is not to say that there are no students who wield knives, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman, before he goes apoplectic again, that the vast majority of Britain's schools are safe places in which to work. The vast majority of teachers do not encounter the horrors that he and his colleagues peddle stories about around the country and portray as the norm, frightening kids and parents into choosing private education.
Mr. Hope: The hon. Gentleman has hit on an important point about the deliberate attempt by the Conservatives to raise fears. They create unnecessary worry and, more importantly, undermine the real efforts of teachers to deal with and help challenging and difficult pupils. The scaremongering undermines our efforts to give teachers the support and help that they need to do a good job.
Mr. Willis: That is right. The Conservatives are using scare tactics. They have absolutely no other policy. Yes, violent and disruptive pupils must be removed from the classroom, and even the Minister would accept that the ludicrous targets for cutting exclusions must be abandoned by the Department for Education and Employment, but unless we address behaviour problems in a comprehensive and imaginative way, all we will succeed in doing is to create an even greater problem for society further down the road.

327
When one considers the social exclusion unit's report, "Bridging the Gap" and sees how many of those 170,000 youngsters leave school and spend the next two years out of work, with no hope and moving into crime, one realises that this is a real issue that must be grasped. I would have hoped that we would have a consensus across the House on how to tackle challenging behaviour. Instead, the opportunity has been used to score cheap political points.
It is not fashionable to link social disadvantage with educational underachievement. There is always evidence to demonstrate that some outstanding individuals and institutions buck the trend. However, there remains a strong negative correlation between social disadvantage and educational achievement, just as there is a strong positive correlation between educational achievement and economic and social upward mobility. Given those facts, I do not see why it should surprise the Chancellor of the Exchequer that while a mere 7 per cent. of our children attend private schools, they make up 35 per cent. of the straight-A students and take up some 50 per cent. of Oxbridge places. Inequities are as deep-rooted in our culture as they are in our Government, in the civil service and in our major universities. Inequity will be found anywhere where wealth is still able to purchase social advantage.
The answer from the Liberal Democrats is not the politics of envy. It is not a re-run of a former class war, but the real politics of fighting the seeds of injustice that create barriers for so many of our young people. The Chancellor's attack on Oxbridge was misguided. His attack should have been on his own Government for introducing tuition fees, for ending grants for students and for pricing poor students out of the marketplace, because that is what has happened, according to the figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and the Mosaics survey.
The Chancellor's attack should have been on the Prime Minister for encouraging the Russell group and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to believe that a Labour Government would allow them to charge differential tuition fees in a USA-style revamping of higher education finance. I listened carefully to the Minister's speech today, but the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 would allow universities to charge differential fees. I accept that the Government would then take grant from the universities in equal amounts, but nothing in the legislation would stop differential charging.
The Chancellor's attack should have been on his own Government for continuing systematically to reduce the unit funding level for higher education students from £4,980 in 1997 to £4,750 this year. The hon. Member for Buckingham did not answer the Minister's intervention about the 35 per cent. decrease since 1989, but in that year the unit funding per student in higher education was £7,385. It was reduced by 35 per cent. and fell to an unacceptable level by the time this Government took over. We do need a systematic overhaul of an outdated and biased admission system, but the real challenge is ensuring that a greater number of our young people aspire to go to Oxbridge and have the qualifications they need to do so. That means tackling the inherent injustices in our state education system.
I saw as one of my most important challenges as a head as being to help young people from underprivileged backgrounds fight social injustice through their education. To deny that our education system has that prime purpose
328
is to deny the need for universal education at all and to return to the pre-1870 Britain, where the working classes were educated simply according to economic need. We hear fine words from the Government about education for the many, not the few, but so much of their approach has been disjointed and lacked research, co-ordination and vision, as well as resources.
The social exclusion unit was set up in 1997 after the Prime Minister's call for a
Britain in which no one is excluded from opportunity and the chance to develop their potential.
How right he was. He also said that we should make it
our national purpose to tackle social division and inequality.
I make no bones about saying to the Minister that the establishment of health action zones, education action zones and employment action zones has been useful, provided that they are co-ordinated, as they appear to be at the moment. Tackling social exclusion and poverty, wherever it occurs, should be something in which we all participate.
Bernstein wrote in 1970 that
Education cannot compensate for society.
If we accept that social disadvantage is a key factor, if not an excuse, for educational failure at whatever level, including Oxbridge, we must also recognise that tackling poverty in all its facets is the most effective way to encourage educational achievement for all. That is the challenge for the Chancellor and his colleagues in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. The right hon. Gentleman will be judged by the Liberal Democrats on whether he addresses social injustice and poverty or the voting intentions of more affluent groups.
5.56 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Several slogans could be brought into this debate. I would like to see, for example, parents involved; residents trusted; professionals valued; and young people seriously consulted. That little menu could make an enormous contribution to achieving a society that we could really value.
We could begin by involving parents. One of the saddest features of underperforming schools is that when heads, governors and staff turn out for an open night, nobody comes. That is a real tragedy and it happens again and again. Even when certificates are handed out, few parents take the trouble to turn up in far too many of our schools. That is partly a function of the hours that those parents work, and it may be that certificate-awarding ceremonies and parents' evenings should be staggered, so that people who work late at night in underpaid jobs can attend. We may need to be more imaginative. However, in many schools our young professional teachers have an uphill struggle against parental indifference, which is broken only when the parents believe that their child has been discriminated against and, in many cases, make a thoroughly inappropriate response.
A young woman I know of was in her first job and keen as mustard. She worked in an inner-London school and found that, in a class of 35, 16 languages were spoken and one child was so disturbed that he sat at the back nodding his head until he made himself sick. What happens to the other 34 children while the unaccompanied teacher tries to clear up the mess? After two terms in the

329
school, that young woman, in her first year of teaching, was offered the deputy headship because none of the other staff had stayed. That is the reality of some areas of our education system. We must do much more to support teachers. Instead, they are denigrated and verbally assaulted for being incompetent or inefficient. There are inefficient teachers, and they should be eased out of the system, but the majority struggle against tremendous odds.
Governments are full of good intentions, but as we all know, good intentions lead straight to hell. All education Ministers want to change things, so they issue a raft of circulars on taking office. By the time the last school in the country has implemented those changes, the first school to do so is probably three education Ministers' changes down the track. It is impossible for schools to make sense of what they are being asked to do, if they are asked far too often to change what they do.
I believe that we make far too little use of volunteers to support professionals. I am a trustee of the charity Community Service Volunteers, which for many years has been trying to get employers interested in sending employees into schools at lunchtime. People who do that enrich their own lives and improve their performance at work, but also enrich enormously the lives of the pupils whom they help.
I think that the country should have a national youth service. Young people should be able to volunteer for a proper length of time so that they can find themselves. The Nuffield study and other studies have found considerable evidence that young people who volunteer change their attitudes to minorities and to each other.
There is a danger that the debate belongs in the land of the Wizard of Oz. Hon. Members have talked about getting to university and the surge of people going into higher education. I am delighted that that is happening, but we must ensure that higher education is as it should be. I am deeply worried by the changes that have taken place in some parts of higher education in recent years. It is now common for senior academics to be promoted on the basis of the money that they have attracted through their research, rather than on the basis of their teaching.
Teaching is becoming very much disregarded, at least in many of our more successful universities. Most students have no interest in research. They are left short changed when they are lured into higher education, only to find that teaching in universities is undervalued. University teachers have no support staff to speak of, and have to do everything themselves. That is a shame.
We should place much more trust in people who live in difficult areas. Far too many people live in intolerable conditions, and the vast majority of badly run estates are represented by members of the Labour party. Many of those councillors have almost given up hope. They do not have any serious intention of giving self-determination to residents. If residents were given only a relatively small amount of money to spend, they would transform the quality of their lives—the syringes would be taken off the grass, the dog mess would be removed, and lights would be repaired the day after they were broken.
Such things are essential, but the idea of trusting the poor with any money at all is discounted in local authorities up and down the land. That is a shame and a huge mistake.
330
We do not consult young people seriously enough. The Government came into office claiming that they would consult more widely than ever before. They set up focus groups, and I am sure that they have been very useful. They have also introduced a raft of legislation that directly impacts on young people, but they have never seriously set out to determine the opinions of young people.
Young people have an enormous amount to offer. Very often, they know what they want—if not in detail, at least in outline. I am chairman of the steering group for the United Kingdom youth parliament. When that organisation takes shape, it will provide a representative group of young people against which policies can be tested, and from which the ideas for new policies can be derived.
Mr. Hope: I could not agree more genuinely about the need to consult young people. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have consulted young people, through a variety of mechanisms. Young people have visited No. 10 Downing street as part of the social exclusion unit's strategy for including consultation with young people in its decision-making process. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that every hon. Member could do far more to consult young people? For example, I hold parliamentary youth forums in my constituency to ensure that I hear young people's views. Could not other hon. Members do the same?
Mr. Rowe: The tide is beginning to come in. The enthusiasm of young people for the United Kingdom youth parliament has outrun the available resources. I am grateful to the Under—Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who is no longer in his place, for what little in the way of resources has been given to those of us who want to establish the parliament. However, the body will be established: it will change the face of the country and do a great deal to engage people not with party politics but with the stuff of politics. In that way, we can try to make society work better.
Access to the health service also needs to be looked at carefully. The move to consulting the consumer is in some ways welcome, but we are in danger of allowing the consumer's preference to outrun common sense. For example, many beds in the national health service are blocked because families are given a choice about which home their elderly relatives can be sent to. Although the choice is often severely limited, no placement in a particular home has to be accepted. Families pay nothing while their elderly or sick relative is in hospital, but they may have to pay top-up fees when that relative moves into a home. There is therefore a perverse incentive that leads to beds being blocked. We need to look at that and similar problems very carefully.
Finally, I turn to the question of consultants. We should honour the dedication, hard work and expertise that many consultants display, but we should also be extremely tough when consultants say that they will not work with a colleague but refuse to help health trusts by putting their reasons in writing. As a result of such behaviour, a health trust may have to spend as much as £1.25 million of patients' money which it can ill afford to get rid of a person with whom consultants will not work. Defensive practices such as that are out of date and improper.
6.7 pm
Mr. Bill Rammell: I shall be brief, as I am aware that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
My first comments are addressed to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who, in his typically robust contribution, made some of the repetitive errors for which he is known. He spoke about exclusions from school. I do not propose that violent and disruptive pupils should not be removed from school, under certain circumstances. However, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was right to point out that there is a danger that the difficulty may be exaggerated.
That exaggeration is a persistent problem among Conservative Members and their spokespeople. During the 18 years of the Conservative Government, there was a deliberate attempt to denigrate state education and to encourage people to move to the private sector. The constant harping on the problem of violence in state schools is part of a pattern.
Although care must be taken with the targets set for the reduction in exclusions from schools, anyone who talks to head teachers knows that league tables make schools conscious of their exclusion rates, and that schools can use those rates to manage their position in the league table. Any Government who did not take that into account and did not try to reduce exclusions would be irresponsible. Excluding pupils without offering them any alternative forms of education merely stores up social problems for the future.
Mr. David Taylor: The private school nearest to the House is Westminster school. Its head teacher has excluded many final-year students as a result of behaviour that was reported in both the national and the international press. Is it not clear that the problem of exclusion is therefore not confined to state schools in difficult areas?
Mr. Rammell: It certainly is not, and that is in line with my critique of the contribution from the hon. Member for Buckingham. The hon. Gentleman displayed breathtaking nerve when he criticised the Government for increasing the amount of regulation. Anyone visiting a school during the 18 years of Conservative Government was regaled by teachers with stories of the never-ending regulation and coercion to which they were subjected by that Government. We have rightly focused on standards and on the necessary regulations. However, I welcome the fact that the Government are listening to what schools and teachers are saying, and are seeking to remove some of that regulation.
I was also interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about the percentage of national wealth invested in education under this Government. Who was it who talked about lies, damned lies and statistics? First, the percentage of national wealth that is invested in education depends greatly on the performance of the economy. In a booming economy, as we have at the moment, a percentage of national wealth invested in education means vastly more money being invested in schools than happened under a Government who went through the two worst recessions since the second world war.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rammell: In a while.
332
Secondly, anybody can play with the figures. The key judgment for electors is what a Government inherit and what they have done by the end of their period in office. It is incontestable that, by the end of this Government's period of office, we will be investing a higher proportion of national income in education than the proportion that we inherited when the Conservatives left office on 1 May 1997.
We then heard from the hon. Gentleman a sustained diatribe against the new deal. I take exception to that, because I passionately believe, from talking to young people, that the new deal is the first sustained, properly funded scheme for the long-term unemployed that we have seen in this country in a generation. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the rate of decrease in terms of long-term youth unemployment was less now than it was between 1993 and 1997. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but I do not doubt that, because we are moving towards full employment. We have dramatically reduced unemployment. As we move towards full employment, of course the rate of decrease will reduce. This way of playing with statistics to present a false impression leads to great concern.
I recently held an event at the House of Commons for employers in my constituency to focus on the opportunities to be obtained by the new deal. Unbeknown to me, a young woman from British Airports Authority, who works at Stansted airport, was there. She had been unemployed for six months; she felt that she had no hope, no opportunity. She went on the new deal, and is now the personal assistant to one of the directors at BAA at Stansted. That example demonstrates that the new deal is working.
We also heard about the national health service. Lectures from the Conservative party about our stewardship of the national health service are very difficult to take. If we consider in detail what happened under the previous Government for 18 years, we see that there were erratic increases in funding. There were a couple of good years here and there in terms of increased investment, normally as we were coming up to a general election, but in some years, the real-terms increase in funding was as little as 0.4 per cent.
The difference that people are seeing under this Government is sustained, continuing investment so that we can begin to tackle problems such as the bed blocking to which the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred and some of the problems involving consultants. Sustained investment, over the longer term, needs to take place so that we can provide the kind of health service that people want.
Mr. Bercow: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not dispute the fact that the Government are responsible for a shortfall of about £13 billion in terms of their manifesto commitment to increasing expenditure on education. He did not cavil at that charge against the Government.
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is aware that, in the majority of cases, the new deal is not producing sustained, unsubsidised jobs, and that the majority of people going on the scheme are finding jobs for a short period but are then coming out of work again?
Mr. Rammell: When we launched the new deal, nobody ever said that we would guarantee a job to

333
everybody when they came out of the scheme. The new deal is, however, providing opportunities where previously none existed.
Liberal Democrat Members focused on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's comments. I think that my right hon. Friend was absolutely right to make those comments about the Laura Spence case. He was rightly identifying an example of a superbly qualified young woman, who was adequately qualified for entrance to Oxford university, but did not get in. That case highlighted a problem. If it was an isolated example, we could ignore it, but I do not believe that it is. I remember the example, which gained national newspaper coverage, of a young woman in my constituency who applied to Oxbridge, and was ridiculed at the interview not because of her qualifications, her intelligence or her ambition, but because of her accent.
In addition to those specific examples, an independent report this week shows that children and young people from state schools are significantly under-represented compared with what we would expect, given their qualifications. We have a real problem. There are young people who have ambition and talent and are adequately qualified, but because of historical reasons and prejudices, they are not getting access to our best universities.
Mr. David Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so generously again. Is not one way of tackling some of those difficulties, as suggested by a former deputy leader of this party, to remove some of the huge tax concessions given to private schools which make their performance so attractive to the better-off section of society.
Mr. Bercow: The old left returns.
Mr. Rammell: Whether it is old left or new left, that issue needs consideration. We want to ensure that there is fairness and equality in the system.
There are further concerns regarding higher and further education, and a lot of it comes down to funding. I welcome the fact that we are introducing educational maintenance allowances at the age of 16. All my discussions with young people from poorer backgrounds indicate that the real determinant of whether someone goes on to further and higher education comes at 16. That is the point at which the young person has to be supported, out of work, through the family. It is absolutely right to bring in those allowances and I want to see them expanded as quickly as possible.
We must also face up to the threat of top-up fees that is being pressed rigorously by the Russell group of top universities. If they had their way, we would have the prospect of fees of £7,000 or £8,000 a year. This has already been tried out in Australia, where it has had a catastrophic effect on access.
It is particularly instructive to see the Conservative amendment criticising tuition fees. The Conservatives supported the Dearing inquiry, which imposed tuition fees. In addition, those of us who served in Committee on the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 remember the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dowell)
334
explicitly arguing for the opportunity for top-up fees to be available to institutions. Given that, the Conservative amendment is duplicitous in the extreme.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rammell: No, I need to make some progress.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough did not allow me to intervene on him earlier, so I must make this point now. I listened carefully to his impassioned attack on tuition fees, not only top-up fees, introduced by the Government. Logically, that would mean that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of abolishing tuition fees. However, we should not judge people only by what they say but by their alternative Budget statements. The Liberal Democrats' alternative Budget statement contains no reference to doing away with tuition fees.
It is just like the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings. Liberal Democrats go round the country making claims and statements, yet when they have the opportunity, in their detailed alternative Budget, to say where the money would come from and how it would be raised, they are completely silent. Not only is that a problem for the Liberal Democrats as a political party: it does a disservice to those of us who believe in progressive taxation and believe that we have to be honest with people about how we intend to raise the money.
The Chancellor's comments rightly highlighted a real concern in Britain. There are still significant parts of British society that are not accessible to children and young people who come from ordinary backgrounds in state schools. Look at the judiciary, the BBC, our best universities, the civil service, and then look at the number of people working in those institutions who have gone to public school. We have a real problem: the Chancellor was right to highlight it, and we ignore that problem for our young people and our community at our peril.
6.19 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for giving up his opportunity to speak so that I might do so. I realise that several Members wanted to speak in the debate, but were somewhat squeezed out by earlier contributions.
I shall focus on a slightly different aspect of the debate: equal opportunities for older people—or rather, issues of age discrimination and the lack of opportunity for those people. Those issues are undoubtedly real and significant—whether a manager is denied promotion because she is labelled too old; or carers are denied about £14 extra a week merely because they are over 65; or a frail elderly patient is starved to death for want of proper care and attention in a hospital.
When it comes to age discrimination—the denial of opportunity to older people—the Government are still clinging, wrongly, to the idea that a voluntary approach is the way to fix it. I shall explore why that approach has not worked and why we need serious legislation on the matter.
In the past, the House has taken steps to outlaw discrimination on grounds of gender, race or disability. Those laws played a crucial role in changing attitudes in

335
our society. They drew a line and set a benchmark against which behaviour could be judged. As a result, they changed our society. Age discrimination clearly exists in almost all aspects of our life. I shall dwell on two: the workplace and health care.
On the first, a survey of secretaries, published earlier this year by the Employers Forum on Age, found that nine in 10 secretaries believed that ageism exists in the workplace. One in three felt that they had been rejected for a job because of age. Nine in 10 believed that they stood little chance of finding a new job when they reached the age of 45.
When the Institute of Management surveyed its members, it found that half of those surveyed used age as a criteria for making employment decisions. Those businesses are operating foolish and short-sighted policies. They are throwing people on to the scrap heap; they are throwing away human capital and the corporate memory of their organisation.
During the first half of this Parliament, the Government set their face against legislation to combat age discrimination. They preferred to tread the path of a voluntary code, but that code is not working. Is it delivering change? Even the Government's own research, conducted by NOW for the Department for Education and Employment, cast doubt on whether the voluntary approach was working. The survey found that there had been no change whatever in the employment policies of the employers surveyed. Nine in 10 employers were not even aware of the existence of the code of practice that the Government had introduced to encourage age diversity in employment practice.
The Government often say that they do not want to introduce legislation on this matter because they do not want to impose extra burdens on employers. There is concern that employers do not want legislation. However, research shows conclusively that employers believe that there is a case for legislation. Last year, a survey of members of the Institute of Directors found that six in 10 were in favour of legislation on age discrimination. Earlier research by the Institute of Management found that eight in 10 of their members favoured legislation. Even the Federation of Small Businesses would support legislation as long as it was clear and simple.
The voluntary approach is not enough in the workplace. It is certainly not enough in health care. An overwhelming body of evidence shows that there is ageism in the national health service. A Gallup poll, commissioned by Age Concern and published last March, found that one in 20 of over-65s had been refused treatment. Two in 20 felt that their NHS treatment was different after they turned 50. Even the Department of Health found evidence of age discrimination and ageist assumptions in the provision of health care. A review of renal services found that two thirds of kidney patients aged over 70 were refused dialysis or transplants. An audit of cardiac services found that four in 10 post-heart attack rehab programmes imposed arbitrary age limits.
A survey of general practitioners conducted by Age Concern found that one in three GPs believed that age-based rationing occurred in our health service. One GP said:
In hospital, you have to be able to feed yourself as the nurses don't do it. If you are frail, you've had it.
That is hardly a surprise. More and more older people are admitted to fewer and fewer beds for shorter and shorter stays. That is not the decision of the Labour Government,
336
but an inheritance from the previous Conservative Government—a health service that is so determined to get people in and out of beds quickly that there is no time to focus on quality of care and attention to detail.
Recently, my attention, and that of many people—Members and those outside this place—has been drawn to the inappropriate use of not-for-resuscitation orders. There is a massive gap between the guidelines for the use of such orders and actual practice. The case of Jill Barker, a 67-year-old cancer patient, drew that to our notice. It highlighted the fact that her medical records had been marked with an NFR order—those initials are used. That was in breach of the guidelines produced by the British Medical Association and reconfirmed by the Department of Health. There had been a serious breach of faith—one that many people feel needs to be tackled. Indeed, that case produced many more examples of the inappropriate use of NFR orders on people's medical records.
Research reported in the British Medical Journal found that two in three patients are not even consulted when NFR orders are placed on their medical records. An even more alarming statistic is that patients who have NFR on their records are 30 times more likely to die than those who do not. When they are not even consulted about that decision, it begs questions about the way in which our health service is working.
I have raised NFR orders in the House on several occasions—through debates, questions and early-day motions. I have been appalled by the complacency of the Government's response. They rely on guidance that was issued more than a year ago and are not prepared to address the problems being raised by Age Concern and others.
Because of ageist assumptions in employment practices, in our health service and in many other aspects of life, it is time that comprehensive legislation to tackle age discrimination was on our statute book. Such measures would have a positive impact. They would address the growing concern about the way that we treat our elderly people. The absence of such legislation—when it exists on gender, race and disability—downgrades for many people the importance we should be attaching to dealing with age discrimination. It sends the wrong signals.
For that reason, I hope that the Government will give up the voluntary approach and seriously address the need to establish a proper legislative framework that will confirm that we recognise that there is no place whatever for ageism in this country.
6.28 pm
Mr. Don Foster: As the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), said in his opening remarks, the debate is important. It has certainly been wide ranging. After the introduction by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), we heard a thoughtful speech from the Minister, to which I shall return in a moment. We then heard a rather lengthy speech from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I shall not be able to answer all the questions he put, because he asked for our views on a range of matters—from the new deal to red tape and bureaucracy in schools. We are in favour of one and against the other, but I can provide him with more details later if he wants them.

337
The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made impassioned speeches. Although they are on opposite sides of the House, I felt a great deal of sympathy for both of them. The hon. Member for Corby was especially concerned to achieve the best possible start for all his constituents. He wanted open and equal access, and I am sure that we would all agree with him on that.
The speech with which I was most in agreement was made by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). He did not utter a word for which I would not offer wholehearted support. We should all support and be grateful for his long campaigns for Community Service Volunteers and for the right of young people to be heard.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) made an interesting speech. I agreed with some of his points and disagreed with others. However, may I point out in the gentlest possible way that it is important to carry out research before one makes a speech? He said that Liberal Democrats had not referred to the abolition of tuition fees in our recent statement on the Budget, and he said that we had not costed our proposal. Unfortunately for him, I have a copy of the statement, which categorically states that our programme includes:
Abolishing university tuition fees up to and including undergraduate level and introducing "hardship benefit" payments in order to increase access.
The costing for that proposal appears at the end of the document. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, so I hope he does not think that I have mysteriously created from scratch, and in such a short space of time, a whole document just to prove him wrong. I shall send him a copy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised the important issue of age discrimination. I have also raised it from time to time, not least in relation to job advertisements. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is pursuing the issue with such vigour.
It has to be admitted that the Government were elected on a tide of good will and high expectations from many people in this country. They thought that they had elected a Government who would help the poor, the pensioners, the lone parents, the socially excluded, those stuck on run-down, crime-ridden housing estates, and those marooned in rural villages with no buses. They thought that they had elected a Government who would come to the rescue of all of those who had been sidelined in the Tory years.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West rightly said in his speech, the Government have taken action on some of those issues. Our concern—the principal concern of the debate—is that the Government's actions have been limited; they have not gone far enough. The Government have been too timid in their thinking and they have failed to grasp some of the real problems that exist. They have been too timid on the social justice agenda.
There appears to be almost a sense of partial denial by the Government. From time to time, they spot an issue and pick it up. The Minister, in his thoughtful speech, was willing to accept the genuine concern about the many elderly people who die from the cold. He said that that was a national disgrace. He also acknowledged that there
338
needs to be more joined-up Government thinking to address some of the issues. He added that unemployment was still too high, despite the work that has been done and he acknowledged that no one should be complacent and that much needed to be done. I welcome that.
The problem is that the Government take a semi-myopic approach. They notice and recognise issues when that suits them, but they pretend that they do not exist at other times. As we know, the Prime Minister has tried to deny the existence of a north-south divide and he seems to think that everything that the Government are doing for pensioners is wonderful. He seems to suggest that those living in rural areas should be glad that they have such pleasant surroundings in which to live and that there is no crisis on our farms. The Government tell us that they are doing wonderful things in the health service, but why do we still have a postcode lottery three years into a Labour Government? Why can one receive certain drugs and treatments in some parts of the country, but not in others?
There are areas of selective myopia. However, when it suits the Government they invent a crisis for their own benefit. That is exactly what we had with the case of Laura Spence, when she could not get into Magdalen college, Oxford. Suddenly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer magically became an expert on how to choose the cleverest five applicants out of 23, all of them with top grades. The best reporting of that incident that I have come across was by my noble Friend Earl Russell in another place. He recently wrote an article which I thought I had here, but which seems to have disappeared. However, his point was simply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to believe that there is a system that can perfectly select students merely on the basis of examination results, or even predicted examination results. Reality is not like that. We all know that, in a highly competitive system, we cannot guarantee that those with the best predicted grades will get the top jobs. If that were the case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be the Prime Minister, not the present incumbent.
The key point is that this issue should be left to the professionals to decide using their expertise. I am delighted that, in the two weeks that the Prime Minister has had off, he has had the opportunity to reflect. Although it was much derided by his audience, he made some very good points in his speech to the Women's Institute. He said:
I think we in government—and that means me—have to trust people more.
At long last, he is perhaps beginning to understand that it should be the job of the Government to set the framework and to provide the resources. They should then let the professionals—be they in health care, education and even in the selection of students for universities—get on and do their job.
Mr. Rammell: Let us put to one side the Laura Spence case. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a real problem with the under-representation of children from state schools at Oxford and Cambridge, given what one would expect from their qualifications?
Mr. Foster: I do not disagree that an issue needs to be addressed. However, the problem is how the issue was addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is our concern.

339
The Prime Minister seems to have seen the light in his speech to the Women's Institute today—two weeks on paternity leave has had a great effect on him. He said:
We don't have to fight over every headline.
Perhaps that will mean that the Chancellor of Exchequer will not seek to get headlines, but that we shall have a sensible approach to the problem that the hon. Member for Harlow rightly highlighted.
It is clear to Liberal Democrats that the solution to that problem is to raise standards in the state education system, One reason why it is difficult to do that and create a level playing field is that the independent sector spends twice as much per pupil as the Government spend per pupil in the state school sector. They are partly tackling the problem with some additional money, but their announcement that they will spend £19 billion would make any double-entry bookkeeper blush.
The Government are making some progress but, despite that, class sizes in secondary schools are at their biggest for 20 years, and class sizes are rising in nursery and junior schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough rightly pointed out, and despite what the Minister said, the amount of money that is spent per university or further education student is falling under this Government.
There is the issue of how we solve the problem of entry into Oxford and Cambridge. The solution is increased investment in our education service and trusting the professionals in that service to get on and do their job. However, the problem also relates to how we can make more people interested in entering higher education institutions. It is a little odd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be so concerned about the issue when he is a member of a Government who introduced the very tuition fees that discourage some people from entering higher education.
I have referred to selective myopia, and it affects many different issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West rightly expressed his concern about the plight of pensioners and the elderly. They—and many people who speak on their behalf—are angry at the pitiful 75p increase in the state pension. There is an urgent need to do more about that.
Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is building an impressive charge on selective myopia. However, is he not also revealing amnesia on a grand scale in relation to the proposals on pensions in the manifesto on which his party fought the election? The Liberal Democrats' commitment to pensions was significantly less than ours. Indeed, we have already exceeded our aims in three years of government.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is wrong and has selective myopia. He clearly did not read in its entirety our documentation on the additional increases that we would be prepared to make to pensioners over 75 and, indeed, over 80. I urge him to watch this space for further developments.
At least we are developing thinking on giving pensioners even better support. The Conservative party's offer is disappointing. Expert analysis of its recent announcement on pensions shows it to be nothing like the exciting bonanza that Conservative Members would have us believe. In reality, that bonanza amounts to a magical
340
increase of 43p a week for pensioners, once their free television licences and winter fuel payments have been removed, and reductions have been made in many areas of the budget, with money being taken from the new deal for lone parents and the social fund budget being slashed.
The Government's myopia on the north-south divide is even more staggering. The Prime Minister recently sought to persuade us that there is no such divide, despite all the statistics. Disposable income per head in the north-east is almost a third lower than that in the south-east. Seventy-five per cent. of households in the north-east receive some form of welfare benefit, compared with only 63 per cent. in the south. Jobs in the north-east are growing at a rate of 1 per cent., compared with 12 per cent. growth in the south-east, and so on. Today, the Office for National Statistics demonstrated that, whether rich or poor, people in the north of England are more likely to die early than those in the south. Even so, the Prime Minister still wishes to deny the existence of the gap.
Ms Julia Drown rose—
Mr. Foster: I shall not give way, as I have little time in which to finish my speech.
The Minister referred to housing and expressed concern about keeping elderly people warm. However, what have the Government done about the 5.4 million people living in fuel poverty? They appear to have solved the problem for 1.1 million by doing nothing other than changing a definition. Since their time in opposition, the Government have changed their position and magically removed 1.1 million people from the total of those in fuel poverty. However, millions are still in such poverty and we are not doing enough about that. We could do simple things, such as setting a lower rate of value added tax on house renovation and new build, so that people do not pay the full VAT rate when they try to repair their crumbling buildings.
Finally, on transport, people in rural areas are suffering from many problems, such as closures of shops, post offices and village pubs. The poorest in those areas do not have access to a car and depend on rural transport, but the Government are spending £270 million less on public transport than the Tories were when they left office.
Thinking must be far more imaginative if we are to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor and tackle the poverty of those living in rural and urban areas. The Government promised us that 1999 would be a year of delivery. However, it appears that their cheque is still in the post and, sadly, we must still mind the gap.
6.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): Whatever the Liberal Democrats' intentions in choosing this subject, I can tell them that Labour Members very much welcome the chance to debate equal opportunities and inequalities in our country because nothing exposes the dividing lines between the political parties more than inequality. It is one of the key lines along which party policy divides, thereby enabling people to see clearly the different values, principles, approaches and prescriptions on which Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat politics are based. Inequality takes us

341
back to the basic politics that each party stands for. Today we have certainly seen those basic political positions set out in stark contrast, and that is helpful.
The Tories, in so far as they even recognise inequality, clearly see it as the natural order and something that they do not have to do very much about—except of course to make it worse, as they did when they were in government. The Liberal Democrats still have the old-style handout mentality. They would give people a crutch but would not tackle the fundamental processes in society that lead to inequality. That is the first-aid approach of sticking on a plaster in the form of extra cash but failing to face the hard choices necessary to remedy some of the causes of inequality.
The Liberal Democrats do not understand that opportunity and responsibility go hand in hand—not because we say that they do, but because that is what people want. That is what we want, and people who experience inequality are no different. Cash on its own will not lead to long-term change. People want opportunities that enable them to take responsibility for their own lives, rather than being beholden to a benefits system.
Labour, by contrast, understands the deep-rooted causes of inequality and the fact that it is not one-dimensional because inequality in unemployment and income connects with inequality in health, educational underachievement and housing, and even in the length of one's life. Some Liberal Democrat Members recognise that. Opportunity is not distributed equally in our society, and while some groups have a wealth of opportunity, others have opportunity poverty. For too many people, where they are born, their family and their circumstances at birth are still powerful determinants of where they end up in adult life.
The way to tackle the fundamental change that is needed is therefore the hand-up, not the handout. We must ensure that the systems that we can influence—education, the economy, health and housing—enable all people to grow, to develop and to grasp the opportunities that exist.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was the only Opposition Member to acknowledge the extent of inequality that we inherited after 20 years of Tory Government. Inequality widened and deepened substantially under the Tories. In 1997, the mortality of infants born to unskilled parents was still almost twice that of those born to professional parents. Those in the lower half of the income distribution received a quarter of all total income—which is also the amount that the top 10 per cent. received.
More than three in five children were living in a household where neither parent was in full-time work and where the income was below 60 per cent. of the median. Fewer than one in 10 individuals living in a household headed by people with black, Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi origins were in the top fifth of the income distribution. Local education authorities with high proportions of children eligible for school meals had significantly lower GCSE attainment levels than those with low free-school-meal eligibility. Perhaps the most chilling statistic of all is that an unskilled man had a 20 per cent. chance of surviving past retirement age and seeing something of his old age, while a professional man's chance of doing so was 80 per cent.
342
Those are not Government statistics; they come from the Office for National Statistics report on social inequalities, which was published last month. Their importance lies in the extent of inequality that they reveal over the period to which they relate and in what inequality means both for people and society. My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and for Corby (Mr. Hope) gave some graphic and human detail of what inequalities mean for peoples' lives and how the Government are trying to address them.
The quality of life for each of the individuals and families affected by such circumstances is poorer than it should be or need be. There is a lost opportunity to make a better life for those individuals and their families. The children concerned face an uphill struggle to realise their potential, and many never do so. There is also a lost opportunity for society as a result of the failure to capitalise on the wealth of talent and human resources that is available to us. There is therefore a failure to maximise the growth potential and strength of our economy.
The policy of the Liberal Democrats on inequality has become clearer today, both in the Chamber and from the contributions of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on the "Today" programme this morning. He said that their approach to inequality is, first, that we should be putting more money into state education, welfare, the health service and pensions, for example. Secondly, he said that we should be promoting the liberty and freedom of the individual and liberating the community at the expense of the state. The only sense I can make from that is that Liberal Democrat policy is merely to throw money at problems and then leave matters to sort themselves out.
The right hon. Gentleman's comments this morning on his own experiences were perhaps more revealing. He said:
I will take you to my own personal circumstances. I went to a local state primary school, a local comprehensive secondary school, the University of Glasgow and then on a Fulbright scholarship in the United States. I did all that on the basis of competing on a fair and equal basis with other candidates.
I do not know whether he believes this, but it sounds as if he is saying that it does not make any difference to anyone's chances if he or she is brought up in a poor area of Glasgow, for example, instead of Fort William. We fundamentally disagree with that. It is not enough to provide fair and open competition. If we are to address inequality, we must help people to become more able to take the opportunities that arise.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I hesitate to interrupt a fascinating life story. However, I bring to the Minister's attention the consideration that were it not for the state sector and comprehensive education, I would not have had the chance of tertiary education. When I took up the chance of a scholarship in the United States, it was a valuable experience. At that stage, the best part of 20 years ago, the US was implementing precisely the student-funding approach that is now the Government's policy. In the mid-west, the one group of people who were not my contemporaries were those who were well heeled, from New York and California. There were very few of the poorer kids from the mid-west because the system

343
deterred them. That experience taught me a great deal. I wish it were an experience from which the Government would learn.
Ms Hughes: It seems not to have taught the right hon. Gentleman very much. He said that he got his scholarship competing
on a fair and equal basis with other candidates.
I am saying that fair and equal competition is not sufficient. It might be necessary, but if we are to help kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, it is not a sufficient condition to enable them to make the progress that clearly the right hon. Gentleman was able to make.
Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hughes: No, I will not give way at this stage. I want to make more progress.
I am glad that we have achieved clarity, because so far the Liberal Democrats' stance on inequality has been confusing. They opposed the windfall tax to fund the new deal. They supported opportunity for the few but not for the vast majority. Their manifesto stated that they would increase pensions in line with prices, but now they are to be linked with wages. Perhaps if it had been a Lib Dem 75p increase, it would not have mattered so much. They said that they would put £200 million into health and education from their elastic 1p increase in income tax. So far, they have not matched our £40 billion.
Liberal Democrats accuse us of poverty of ambition and of timidity. However, when it comes to difficult choices, they run scared. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) gave us no more of the Lib Dem analysis of what is required than more cash, more cash and more cash. That is because they only have to make promises; they do not have to deliver.
We share with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough the belief that education is a key source of inequality as a result of underachievement, and that education is a key way out of deprivation. I do not share his party's views about how we will achieve real opportunity in education for everybody, but I acknowledge his commitment to education and to young people.
I cannot say the same of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). It is amazing how often the quality of speeches is in inverse proportion to their length, and so it was this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman's speech was as bankrupt in substance as it was full of bluster. What he chose to speak about was interesting. In an extraordinarily long speech, he spent almost half an hour defending Oxford, Cambridge and grammar schools. He spent the rest of it—a relatively short time—rubbishing the national health service, public transport and the new deal.
Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that at least one saving grace was that the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) cleared the official Opposition's Benches, where three Members now reside? They are to be set against the scores of people who are interested in equality.
Ms Hughes: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that.
344
I must take the hon. Member for Buckingham to task, because he accused every other Member in the Chamber of ignorance. He said that the new deal was a failure and a waste of money. He added that it was not worth the effort and that it was not having any impact. However, by the end of March, 210,000 young people had moved into jobs through the new deal. To take up one of the hon. Gentleman's points, 73 per cent. of those jobs are sustainable, and 86 per cent. of them do not, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's claim, require subsidy.
It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman does not know that in December two reports were published on the macro-economic evaluation of the new deal for young people. The evaluation was undertaken by a conglomerate of five independent research organisations. One of the findings was that unemployment is much lower as a result of the new deal. The independently conducted research confirms that half of those leaving unemployment since the new deal began would not have done so without it. The evaluation of the new deal is the most robust of any labour market programme. The report is free, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to read it. He may learn something, but it will not be humility.
The Government's approach is in stark contrast to those of the Conservative party and the Lib Dems. We have set ourselves the goal of ensuring that there is opportunity for all, and unreservedly attacking social exclusion. There should be opportunity for all alongside responsibility from all.
The Labour party was born out of the conviction and from the experience of many of its members that inequality and lack of opportunity are unjust, divisive and a waste of human potential. Many Labour Members and some Opposition Members come from backgrounds where only a few have the opportunities that enabled us to achieve something like our potential and enjoy a wider range of opportunities in life. We are too well aware of many friends from childhood and members of our own families—sisters and brothers, who are no less able than ourselves—who did not have the key chances. The hon. Member for Buckingham finds that funny, but we would expect that from him, wouldn't we?
We see in our constituencies that things have not changed much for many of today's children. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby spoke graphically about that. The hard-working, decent people of this country want that to change. They want a society that is fair and just in which everyone has a chance to get on and make the best of themselves. They want the chance to use opportunities and then to go on and take responsibility for their own future, as we do and as the hon. Member for Buckingham does. However, that is a chance that he would like to deny to others.
Opportunity for all does not exist in Britain at the moment. Some people and some groups—people from poor backgrounds, women, people from minority ethnic communities, disabled people—face barriers that others do not. They all face barriers and old-fashioned attitudes that should have no place in a modern society—the sort of attitudes we have seen today from the one Member of the Tory party who spoke from the Front Bench.
We are determined to lift those barriers, and we make no apology for that. That is the proper job of a proper Government. It is what sets the Labour Government apart from the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats.

345
We are not leaving barriers in place like the Tories, or preferring to look the other way, or giving a quick fix that fizzles out, like the Liberal Democrats, but enabling people, through opportunities, to exercise the same choices and to take the same personal responsibilities that we all expect.
The Government are working hard in a systematic and sustained way to change Britain, to lift the barriers for all and to enable individuals and families whom we are concerned about—unlike Opposition Members—to reach their full potential, enabling them to take responsibility for their futures and, in so doing, to contribute as much as they can to this country's future. I urge Members to oppose the motion and to support the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 249.

Division No. 219]

[7.1 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Keetch, Paul

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

Baker, Norman

Ballard, Jackie

Kirkwood, Archy

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Livsey, Richard

Brand, Dr Peter

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Burnett, John

Oaten, Mark

Burstow, Paul

Öpik, Lembit

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Chidgey, David

Sanders, Adrian

Cotter, Brian

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

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Fearn, Ronnie

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Foster, Don (Bath)

Tyler, Paul

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Webb, Steve

Gidley, Sandra

Welsh, Andrew

Hancock, Mike

Willis, Phil

Harvey, Nick

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Mr. Andrew Stunell and

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Mr. Tom Brake.

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Browne, Desmond

Alexander, Douglas

Buck, Ms Karen

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Burgon, Colin

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Barron, Kevin

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Bayley, Hugh

Casale, Roger

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Caton, Martin

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Cawsey, Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Bennett, Andrew F

Chaytor, David

Benton, Joe

Clapham, Michael

Berry, Roger

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Best, Harold

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Clelland, David

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Clwyd, Ann

Bradshaw, Ben

Coffey, Ms Ann

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Cohen, Harry

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Coleman, Iain

346

Colman, Tony

Jamieson, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jenkins, Brian

Cooper, Yvette

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Corston, Jean

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Cranston, Ross

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Crausby, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Keeble Ms Sally

Cummings, John

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Kemp, Fraser

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Khabra, Piara S

Dalyell, Tam

Kilfoyle, Peter

Darvill, Keith

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Lepper, David

Denham, John

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Dismore, Andrew

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Linton, Martin

Donohoe, Brian H

Lock, David

Dowd, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Drown, Ms Julia

McDonagh, Siobhain

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Macdonald, Calum

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McDonnell, John

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

McFall, John

Edwards, Huw

McIsaac, Shona

Efford, Clive

Mackinlay, Andrew

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McNulty, Tony

Ennis, Jeff

MacShane, Denis

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Mactaggart, Fiona

Fisher, Mark

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Mallaber, Judy

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Flynn, Paul

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Martlew, Eric

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Merron, Gillian

Fyfe, Maria

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Galloway, George

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Gapes, Mike

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Gardiner, Barry

Mitchell, Austin

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Gibson, Dr Ian

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Godsiff, Roger

Morley, Elliot

Goggins, Paul

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

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Morris, Rt Hon Sir Jon (Aberavon)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mountford, Kali

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mudie, George

Grocott, Bruce

Mullin, Chris

Gunnell, John

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hain, Peter

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Norris, Dan

Hanson, David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

O'Brien, Milk (N Warks)

Healey, John

Olner, Bill

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Hill, Keith

Hinchliffe, David

Pendry, Tom

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Pike, Peter L

Hope, Phil

Pond, Chris

Hopkins, Kelvin

Pope, Greg

Howells, Dr Kim

Pound, Stephen

Hoyle, Lindsay

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Primarolo, Dawn

Humble, Mrs Joan

Purchase, Ken

Hutton, John

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Quinn, Lawrie

347

Rammell, Bill

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Rogers, Allan

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Rowlands, Ted

Timms, Stephen

Ruane, Chris

Tipping, Paddy

Salter, Martin

Touhig, Don

Sarwar, Mohammad

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Savidge, Malcolm

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Shaw, Jonathan

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Ward, Ms Claire

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wareing, Robert N

Singh, Marsha

Watts, David

Skinner, Dennis

White, Brian

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Wicks, Malcolm

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Soley, Clive

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Speller, John

Wills, Michael

Squire, Ms Rachel

Winnick, David

Steinberg, Gerry

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Stevenson, George

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wyatt, Derek

Stoate, Dr Howard

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Tellers for the Noes:

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Mr. Clive Betts and

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that true opportunity for all requires that access to higher education should be based on merit not background; welcomes the measures the Government has implemented to widen access as part of the record increase in education spending of 8 per cent. in real terms in this year alone; and welcomes the many initiatives taken to help those in society whose needs are greatest, including an extra £950 a year for older pensioners on low incomes and a record increase in NHS spending of an extra £2 billion this year, plus 6.1 per cent. average growth year on year until 2004.

Britain's Strategic Interests
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.13 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the strategic interests of the United Kingdom will best be served by collective action through the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Security and Defence Identity and similar political, economic and military institutions and initiatives; is concerned that the opportunities for a reduction in nuclear weapons have been prejudiced by the refusal of the United States Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and by the proposal that the United States should deploy a system of National Missile Defence, if necessary in breach of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; welcomes the 'unequivocal' declaration of the five permanent members of the Security Council that they will seek to eliminate all nuclear weapons in fulfilment of their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to state, first, what its policy is towards the United States proposal for National Missile Defence and, secondly, what steps it proposes to take to fulfil its pledge to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons; congratulates the armed forces of the Crown on their successful military campaigns in Kosovo and Sierra Leone but expresses disappointment that in the latter case Her Majesty's Government has chosen to deploy UK forces independently of the United Nations peacekeeping force and not as part of it and thereby failed to strengthen the UN effort and to enhance its credibility; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to publish the policy criteria by which it determines that there is a need for intervention.
One of the more trite judgments of contemporary security analysis is that, after the chilling certainty of mutually assured destruction, which was removed by the end of the cold war, the world has become a more unpredictable and equally dangerous place. It is said with some justification that inertia has been replaced by volatility.
If we look back to the cold war, we will remember that the strategy was simple, and even simplistic. It was essentially that of mutually assured destruction. However, in the new security environment, which we accept as being much more volatile and much more unpredictable, what is the strategy that a medium-ranking economic power such as the United Kingdom should pursue?
One of the lessons that we learned from the cold war was that collective action through NATO was essential to success and even to survival. I believe that it is equally true in the new environment that collective action through NATO, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and in particular the European security and defence identity is the best way by which to ensure our security. Just as unilateralism was rejected in the cold war, so it should be rejected now.
I observe that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), is to respond to the debate. I remember the days when he had something of a flirtation with unilateral action. I remember when battle was joined in the seaside towns of England between the unilateralists and the multilateralists, but the hon. Gentleman has come, by a somewhat circuitous route, to the position that I and others occupied at that time. I am only sorry my right hon.

349
Friend Lord Steel, with whom he had many jousts in the seaside towns of England, is not present this evening to observe at first hand this most remarkable of conversions.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: I should like to make some progress. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There is an alarming drift towards unilateral action in international affairs. The failure of the United States Senate to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty—the CTBT—and the determination of the United States to press ahead with a system of ballistic missile defence in apparent breach of the anti-ballistic missile treaty are both disturbing and destabilising features of a determination on the part of the Americans to go it alone, compounded by American unwillingness to endorse the International Criminal Court and the procrastination in the United States in accepting the need to ban the deployment of land mines.
That seems a paradox at a time when the United States is the only military superpower left, and the threat to the interests of the United States has never been less.
Our own Government are not immune from this apparent trend. British forces have done well in Sierra Leone, but they deployed independently of the United Nations, and although they appear to be directing the activities of the UN force, they are not yet part of that force. Of course, they have secured the temporary credibility of the UN in Sierra Leone by their intervention, but they would have assured its permanent effectiveness had they been part of it from the beginning.
After the disasters of Rwanda and Srebrenica, after Somalia, the inadequacies of the United Nations have been freely admitted by the Secretary-General himself. In those circumstances, the credibility and the reputation of UN peacekeeping in Sierra Leone are at stake—if the House will forgive the colloquialism, they are on the line. Another failure could destroy both credibility and reputation for a long time to come.
As a permanent member of the Security Council and as the former colonial power, with our long history of involvement in Sierra Leone, and indeed with the present Prime Minister's personal invitation to President Kabbah to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh some two years ago at a time when President Kabbah had been ousted—all these factors, which have been used to justify intervention in the way in the past few weeks, were equally powerful, and I would argue more powerful, reasons not just for intervention, but for our participation in the United Nations force.
It is disingenuous of the Government to deflect questions on the issue of national missile defence by saying that no request has yet been made for the use of Fylingdales, and that no decision will be taken until such a request is made. One does not have to go very far in the defence and security community in Washington to hear people say that there is rather more of an understanding about these matters than has ever been revealed to the House of Commons.
350
As the noble Lord Robertson, recently the Secretary of State for Defence, has acknowledged, national missile defence at the instigation of the Americans has the capacity to cause severe damage to NATO. More than that, it has the capacity to refuel a nuclear arms race, particularly in Asia.
Deployment of national missile defence could result in the Chinese deciding to increase their nuclear arsenal, with the risk of a corresponding and chilling escalation by India and Pakistan: the domino theory in reverse. The statement that the United Kingdom has no view on national missile defence leads me to the inevitable conclusion that reports of a material difference of opinion between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are unquestionably true. The amendment confirms that disingenuousness. It states that the Government
wishes to see the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and strategic stability, preserved.
A definition of motherhood and apple pie could be found in that pious assertion.
The House is entitled to ask the Government to outline their proposals for achieving those objectives of ensuring the preservation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and of strategic stability. What advice are the British Government giving their United States counterparts? So far, the House has not been favoured with a sufficiently frank statement of Government policy.
In my judgment, the determination to proceed with national missile defence rests on a flawed assessment of threat. Of course rogue states and deeply unpleasant regimes exist. However, we must ask ourselves whether they are so lacking in comprehension that they would threaten to use, or actually use, weapons of mass destruction against the overwhelming nuclear superiority of the United States. The classic definition of threat is capability plus intention. Rogue states may acquire the capability, but it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which they would have the intention.
If national missile defence is necessary to defend the United States, that means that deterrence is considered inadequate. Yet deterrence sustained us through the long watches of the cold war and prevented Saddam Hussein, who undoubtedly had the means of launching weapons of mass destruction, from doing that in the Gulf war. During the famous exchange between James Baker, who was then Secretary of State in the United States Government, and that extraordinary survivor, Mr. Tariq Aziz, James Baker said that, if weapons of mass destruction were used, the response would be disproportionate. The precise nature of the response was never made clear, but those in Baghdad who skulked in their shelters could not exclude the possibility that the use of weapons of mass destruction would have triggered a nuclear response.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the extraordinary book by Richard Butler? There is no reason why he should have read it because it was only published a fortnight ago. The first pages outline the surmise that the continental United States was under considerable threat from the biological weapons of Saddam Hussein. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman happy that such an unlikely premise formed the basis of a cruel action against Iraq?
Mr. Campbell: I have the advantage of having met Mr. Butler on several occasions. Along with some of my

351
hon. Friends, I have had the opportunity of discussing such matters with him. Mr. Butler takes a rather robust view of foreign policy. It may disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I confess that I have more sympathy for, and confidence in, Mr. Butler's analysis of those matters than that of many other commentators. After the promotion of Mr. Rolf Ekeus, Mr. Butler had the responsibility of being the United Nations representative on such matters. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that much of his analysis is correct. We should take careful account of Mr. Butler's words when, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Kuwait, we consider our future attitude towards Saddam Hussein and the regime in Baghdad.
Much in the current nuclear environment is welcome, especially the Duma's ratification of the strategic arms reduction treaty and the comprehensive test ban treaty. It would be a tragedy if that more favourable environment were soured by unilateral action by the United States on national missile defence. I therefore welcome the declaration in the margins of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty discussions a few weeks ago in New York by the five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations. They declared their intention to seek the elimination of nuclear weapons. It was described as an unequivocal declaration.
That unequivocal declaration to pursue the elimination of all nuclear weapons must be matched by action if it is not to encourage the climate of cynicism that allowed India and Pakistan to justify the enhancement of their nuclear capability and to escape all too easily from the subsequent political condemnation.
I was disappointed in the Secretary of State for Defence, who, shortly after the encouraging declaration, said on a television programme that we should not hold our breath. In response to a probing question from Sir David Frost, he said that action would take place not next week, not next month and not next year. When we consider the United Kingdom's strategic interests, we are entitled to ask the Government to outline their proposals for implementing the undertaking, and when we may expect some evidence of it.
In the light of the National Audit Office report and that of the Ministry of Defence, which was published this week, there are important lessons to learn from the deployment to Kosovo. However, I am unconvinced by the reluctance of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to endorse in its report, which was published today, the principle of justified humanitarian intervention.
International law did not begin or end with the United Nations charter. As the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, recently acknowledged, we should be less concerned with the sovereignty of the state and more concerned with that of the individual. However, we are entitled to ask ourselves about the criteria for intervention. There should be an informed debate about that in the House and the country. We must avoid being caricatured as those who intervene under the guise of moral authority when oil and diamonds are at issue but not when only lives are at stake. We must avoid being caricatured as those who intervene only for Europeans, and not for Africans. We will do that best by being clear and public about our criteria for intervention, and by publishing them if necessary.
I invite the Government to tell the House, the people of Britain and the three armed services the criteria that justify intervention. Let me suggest some principles that
352
should be taken into account. My list is not exhaustive, but it provides at least a reasonable basis for debate. Intervention is justified if there is systematic abuse of human rights; if action can be taken that is consistent with existing United Nations resolutions, if not expressly authorised by them; if all reasonable diplomatic efforts have been made and exhausted; if there is a reasonable prospect of success; and if the force to be used is proportionate and does not put our forces or civilians in the relevant country at undue risk. Those criteria should be accompanied by an acceptance that responsibility does not cease with military action.
My last point is prompted by the position in Kosovo, where a military success has not been followed by the political and economic effort and investment that were promised and are undoubtedly necessary for achieving a multi-ethnic society in that country. We are entitled to be proud of the military effort in Kosovo and, indeed, of the basis on which it was mounted, but we have reason for concern about the extent to which that effort has been followed through by systematic, well-funded, well-invested efforts to restore civil governance.
The concerted action taken through what used to be called the European security and defence identity, but which we must learn to call the European security and defence policy, is the next element to which I shall refer. I remember a former Conservative Whip, who is no longer a Member, telling an amused and slightly surprised House that his promotion to the Treasury Bench meant that he had escaped the anonymity of the Whips Office to reach the acronymity of the Ministry of Defence. We must talk of the ESDP, which provides a prime and compelling opportunity, as well as an obligation, for concerted action. If anyone doubts that, they have only to read today's newspaper reports of the observations of the principal policy adviser of Mr. George W. Bush. She has made it clear that an incoming Republican Administration would expect Europe to do much more for its own defence and that the tacit assumption that the United States will gallop over the hill to our rescue in all circumstances, like a modern equivalent of the 5th Cavalry, can no longer be regarded as universally valid.
The worry expressed by that adviser, which we should all share, was not that Europe will do too much, but that it will not do enough. That is why the prime emphasis in the agreement reached last year by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government on European defence was on capability. Capability may involve additional expenditure, although that is sometimes finessed in European capitals by saying that we must spend better rather than more. However, if we are to provide 60,000 troops capable of rapid deployment and being sustained for 12 months, that can be achieved only if they are properly funded and properly resourced. To those Conservative Members who have yet again exhibited the visceral anti-Europeanism that has become so much a part of their political philosophy, I say that the truth is that a strong ESDP will strengthen NATO, but a weak policy will damage it.
It is no secret that the Government's foreign policy is more palatable to the Liberal Democrats than that of their predecessors. I suppose that that damns them with faint praise, but there is a substance to that remark that dates back to the days when the Foreign Secretary and I made common cause on the extraordinary scandal of arms to Iraq, which seems to have passed from political

353
consideration and understanding all to quickly. The House of Commons, as Sir Richard Scott found, was deceived about what was essentially a policy change.
The Foreign Secretary's announcement that the Government and the Foreign Office, of which he had become the leader, intended to achieve a foreign policy with an ethical dimension was applauded from these Benches. However, it is fair to say—particularly on the sale and supply of arms—that we have a certain disappointment about progress. That means that on this and on every other occasion on which the opportunity presents itself, we shall not hesitate to hold the Government to their stated aspiration.
7.34 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof
"believes that the strategic interests of the United Kingdom are normally best served through collective action through the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Security and Defence Identity, and similar political, economic and military institutions and initiatives, and with allies, but that the United Kingdom should reserve the right to act independently where absolutely necessary; notes that the United States has not yet taken a decision to deploy a National Missile Defence, and that Her Majesty's Government has made clear, both to the US and to Russia, that it wishes to see the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and strategic stability, preserved; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to pursue its pledge to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons through bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including through the Non-Proliferation Treaty machinery; and recalls that a principal aim of the deployment of British forces to Sierra Leone was to allow the deployment of additional UN forces, which is now well under way, and to support the UN effort there, and as such has been welcomed by the UN Secretary General."
Apart from the uncharitable reference to seaside resorts, I agree with much of what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said. As usual, he was for the most part very sensible, especially in saying how much better Labour's foreign policy is than that of our Conservative predecessors. I am grateful to him for initiating this timely debate, which goes to the heart of the Government's foreign policy mission: a strong Britain working for the security and prosperity of its people in a changing world.
Defending British values of democracy and respect for human rights makes the world a safer place in which to live, travel and trade. We defend human rights and democracy for other people because those are the values that we demand for ourselves. We reject the cynical view that, because we cannot make the world perfect, we should stop trying to make it better. We cannot put everything right, but we can make a difference. Although we cannot do everything, that does not mean that we should do nothing.
The global interest is becoming the national interest. In the global age, it is in Britain's national interest to promote British values of freedom, democracy and economic modernisation. Promoting our values enhances our prosperity and reinforces our security. Regimes that govern by fear and repression will not achieve the creativity and the innovation essential for successful knowledge-based economies in the new century. Respect for human rights is not a luxury of growth, but the condition for it. Human rights make humans rich.
354
We are uniquely able to pursue our national interests through our global interests. As the only state that is a member of the G8, the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Commonwealth, and with a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, we play a pivotal role in world affairs. We are a bridge between Europe and America. By making Britain stronger in Europe, we make Britain stronger in the world.
We are internationalists, not nationalists. That is why we support the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, NATO and the European Union. We are multilateralists, not unilateralists. That is why we play an active and leading role in supporting international treaties on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and press all other countries to do the same.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am delighted that the Minister is a multilateralist. Can he explain how he reconciles that with his continuing membership of the definitely unilateralist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?
Mr. Hain: I wondered when that would come up, but I am happy to respond. I remain a rank and file member of CND, which has played an honourable role in the cause of nuclear disarmament. The fact that the policy in the manifesto on which the Government were elected is not unilateralist is not the point, and I shall not apologise for that membership, certainly not to the hon. Gentleman. Without being diverted too far down that track, I say to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that there was a cold war during the seaside days to which he referred and people were unable to engage multilaterally—for example, in the way that Presidents Clinton and Putin did only a few days ago.
We stand up for Britain not through isolation, but through global engagement. Globalisation requires effective action in response to humanitarian crises. The Government believe that it is their duty to do what they can to deter aggression and defend our values by whatever means will make a difference, whether that is military muscle, constructive engagement or creative diplomacy. Our policy is based on four principles: force should always be the last resort; the immediate responsibility for halting violence rests with the state in which it occurs; when faced with an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, the international community should act; and any use of force must be collective, proportionate, likely to achieve its objective and carried out in accordance with international law.
Our intervention in Sierra Leone is an example of that approach. We have intervened to protect British nationals, to promote international peace and security, to support and improve a rules-based international order based on the UN and to act as a force for good in the world by defending democratic values and human rights. Sierra Leone clearly shows, too, that our country has global interests and values and a capability to make a positive impact across the world. As even Washington has told us, no other country has the rapid-reaction capability that enabled us to deploy forces so effectively and efficiently into such a remote and difficult African country within 48 hours.
We in Britain, however, cannot exercise our strategic responsibilities on our own. We could not have had the impact that we have had across the world without the

355
security that we enjoy at home, which NATO provides. But NATO has changed. NATO is not a cold war relic; it is one of our main tools for the provision of security and stability throughout Europe—through dialogue with Russia, through its partnership activities with 27 countries, and with its open-door policy.
The biggest change is the extension of NATO's active role in responding rapidly and effectively to crises. At last year's summit in Washington, the Government helped to secure changes in NATO's strategic concept to make crisis management one of the alliance's core tasks. In implementing the changes, Britain is ahead of most of our allies, owing to the very successful strategic defence review that we have implemented.
The NATO-led forces in Bosnia and Kosovo clearly show the advantages of effective, well-co-ordinated allied action.
Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Minister agree that lessons can be learned from our engagement in Kosovo? Does he share my distaste at the fact that Amnesty International has accused this Parliament, through its Government, of committing war crimes? Has he had a chance to read the Foreign Affairs Committee's report, which asks the Government to explain the reasons for the decisions to bomb the television station and the Chinese embassy?
As the Minister will recall, the Committee asked the Government for the right to discuss the issues with the intelligence services. We were not given that opportunity, and consequently we could not get to the bottom of the reasons. Will the Minister make a commitment on behalf of the Government? Can we remove the slur cast by the accusation of war crimes as a result of more information from the Government?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge the hard work done by the hon. Gentleman on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the tough questioning to which he occasionally subjects me. I respect that.
There were no British war crimes. We will of course respond in detail to the questions and arguments posed by the Committee.
We are also helping to create a European security and defence capability, which will enable the European Union to respond better to the post-conflict needs of places such as Kosovo. That will neither undermine our United Nations role nor replace NATO's crisis management role; it will complement both.
Rather than creating divisions in the Atlantic alliance, this will strengthen the European contribution to NATO. American experts and politicians of all colours have called on us to build a stronger Europe for a stronger NATO, and we are doing just that, in a way that has ensured the provision of full transparency in respect of the United States Administration.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): As the Minister will know, the Assembly of the Western European Union is currently meeting in Paris. Can the Minister tell us anything about the British Government's attitude to the question of how the European defence and security system, transferred to the European Union, will retain a degree of parliamentary accountability to countries that are not members of the European Union? As I am sure
356
the Minister will appreciate, those countries are extremely exercised about the fact that they are about to be left out in the cold. They are, after all, as much a part of Europe as are EU countries. We must not have a two-class Europe in regard to defence matters, any more than we should have one in regard to any other matters.
Mr. Hain: I agree that we do not want a two-class Europe, but we do want a coherent defence capability, and—the hon. Gentleman nods in agreement—the European Union is clearly the most effective vehicle. I am sure that the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be resolved, especially the concern of the people of the countries concerned to know what their Governments are doing.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I realise that there can be no instant response to the question that I am about to ask. However, the Minister will know of one way of dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). In matters such as this, NATO should always have the first option—the right of first refusal. What consideration have the Government given to that? It would take account not only of the American anxieties that have been expressed, but of the concerns felt by members of NATO that are not also members of the European Union.
Mr. Hain: There will always be discussion about that. What we did not want was any discrimination against members of NATO, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will sympathise with that.
Ultimately, conflicts need to be resolved at an international rather than a regional or national level. We want a strong, efficient, responsive United Nations that can build consensus among its members, and can deal decisively with crises. We have been leading the way to help reform of the United Nations, including the Security Council, which does need modernising. As a permanent Security Council member, we support the UN's efforts across the globe to settle disputes, prevent conflicts and keep the peace.
We have actively backed the proposals of Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, for international intervention for humanitarian purposes. He has called for the Security Council to forge unity behind the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights should not be allowed. As he has said, no legal principle—not even national sovereignty—can ever shield crimes against humanity.
Last year, nearly 15,000 British soldiers and police took part in UN-led or UN-authorised missions, from Kosovo to Georgia. We signed a memorandum of understanding with the UN setting out the assets that we could make available for peacekeeping purposes, including rapid reaction forces. We are also engaged in important discussions about how the UN can develop its own rapid reaction capability.
We have taken the initiative in improving the way in which the UN runs its peacekeeping operations, and in formulating a set of guidelines for humanitarian action by the Security Council. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. As the Sierra Leone experience demonstrates, big improvements in UN peacekeeping operations are needed. We need better, tighter command and control structures, and better equipped and trained contributing forces.

357
Those problems underline the importance, in Africa especially, of having a regional socket into which the international community can plug. There must be an African ownership of peace agreements—whether in Sierra Leone or the Congo—for international deployment to be effective. That is why we are working with countries such as Nigeria in the west African regional group ECOWAS—the economic community of West African states—and with South Africa in the southern African development community, to enhance their defence and conflict prevention capabilities.
The United Nations also has a key role to play in meeting one of the most sinister threats facing us today—the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We have helped to achieve a number of important goals recently. We are taking a leading role in negotiations for a compliance protocol for the biological weapons convention, and to ensure that the chemical weapons convention is properly implemented. Where international regimes have not stopped proliferation, we are working with our allies to resist that, and to tackle the underlying causes of tension. We drafted and co-sponsored a December 1999 UN Security Council resolution establishing the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission on Iraq. We led the way to achieve an unprecedented agreement with the new agenda coalition of non-nuclear states, enabling us and the four other nuclear weapons states to pledge, at the nonproliferation treaty review conference that took place recently in New York, to work for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. We are serious about that commitment, and want to see early progress. Our hard work also confirmed the non-proliferation treaty as the foundation of the international non-proliferation regime.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way again. I appreciate that he would like to see a world free of nuclear weapons. We are also signed up to article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty, which requires general and complete conventional disarmament as well. Does the Minister not accept, however, that the effect of having a nuclear-free world while retaining a conventionally armed world might be to make the world safe once again for prolonged all-out conventional warfare between large powers that are currently deterred by stable nuclear deterrents?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is a nuclear weapons fanatic who presumably wants virtually every country in the world to have a capability. If we followed his line of thinking, that might well happen.
We shall continue to press for further deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, for entry into force of the test ban treaty and for negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. Progress on non-proliferation and disarmament may be linked to consideration by the United States of the possible deployment of a national missile defence system, to which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife referred.
Mr. Dalyell: Will we also press for deep cuts in the Israeli nuclear capability?
Mr. Hain:I have already said today that we want Israel fully to comply with and sign up to the non-proliferation treaty. That would be in Israel's interests and in the interests of peace and security in the middle east.
358
I was discussing national missile defence, which has been prompted by growing concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles. We understand these concerns. They need to be addressed, but missile defence raises complex and difficult issues. The United States has made it clear that before it takes any decision on NMD, it needs to take a number of important considerations into account, including the need to preserve strategic stability. We welcome that.
We firmly believe that these matters should be addressed bilaterally with the Russians through calm, measured dialogue that leads ultimately to agreement. We therefore welcomed the agreement reached last weekend by Presidents Clinton and Putin to intensify United States and Russian dialogue on ABM matters, and on a START 3 treaty. Despite their obvious differences, we hope they can reach an agreement. We have made it clear to both sides that we continue to value the stability that the anti-ballistic missile treaty provides, and we want it to be preserved.
This is not a safe or perfect world. Nations have the right to protect their people and British defence equipment can help them to do so. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife raised the question of arms sales, and the Labour Government have made arms exports more accountable and transparent than in almost any other country. We have established for the first time a tough code blocking exports of arms for either internal repression or external aggression. A European Union arms code is doing the same thing, and we initiated it. We have annual reports detailing the licences that we have agreed—one of the most open exercises of its kind in the world. We have nothing to hide, and many pressure groups have welcomed our transparency.
Britain is also leading the way on arms control by leading the way to ban land mines across the world, banning the sale of torture equipment, promoting a ban on small arms to conflict zones, and ratifying the nuclear comprehensive test ban treaty. Whether through our arms control policy or the promotion of our strategic responsibilities, we can be proud of the Government's foreign policy and our defence capability.
7.53 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I thank the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for initiating the debate. The whole House will be grateful for the opportunity to debate these matters. We are blessed by the presence of two Ministers, from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence respectively, to provide a little light on the Government's foreign policy.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): United as always.
Mrs. Gillan: Methinks the Minister doth protest too much. During the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, I felt that there was a great deal of unity between the Minister and the Liberal Democrats, but was pleased towards the end of that speech to hear at least some murmurs of sedentary dissent from those who sit to my left in the Chamber.

359
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for North-East Fife—
Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford): The right hon. Member.
Mrs. Gillan: I do apologise to the right hon. Member for North-East Fife—[HON. MEMBERS: "And learned."] I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, but I was surprised to hear him arguing for more money to be spent on defence. It is of course a gentleman's prerogative to change his mind, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman once called, in The Officer magazine of November 1991, for a 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure by 2000. Indeed, he went on to say that there was
no intrinsic merit in defence spending.
It appears that those words are long forgotten, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no allusion to his earlier aspirations. He must be a disappointed man when he thinks back on that magazine article.
I was grateful to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office for setting out some of the Government's foreign policy, although I had heard it all before. Questions asked by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife seemed to slip past the Minister as he stuck carefully to his script. Perhaps when the Minister for the Armed Forces winds up we shall hear further and better particulars of the Government's foreign policy.
We entered the new century with a rapidly changing set of parameters against which the United Kingdom must position itself to steer a steady path in the interests of its citizens, wherever they may be. Technology and globalisation have brought more opportunity and information, and even greater threats than the relative stability of the cold war era.
As in the last century, we remain in a unique position. After the war, Winston Churchill placed Britain at the heart of three interlocking circles—north America, Europe and the Commonwealth. He and his generation had no concept of the global network world in which we now live, but his vision was perhaps more relevant and apposite to today's world than it was even to his.
A current audit of Britain's assets in the world reveals a unique collection and richness. First, there is our place in Europe and our membership of the European Union. Our transatlantic relationship is still very special, on security and military matters above all. We are central in the Commonwealth, an organisation that is potentially ideal as a network for the future. We have a permanent Security Council seat at the United Nations, and we are members of the G8 and NATO.
Our armed forces, so recently in action in Sierra Leone, are the envy of the world, and they have been much praised in the House. Our diplomatic service has a high reputation and extensive capability. We also have the English language, increasingly the lingua franca of the new world.
Mr. Spellar: How can English be the lingua franca?
Mrs. Gillan: I do not know whether the Minister went to Oxford or read classics. The words are lingua franca.
360
We are conveniently placed in a time zone that falls between north America and the far east. London is the pre-eminent international financial centre, which puts Britain at the crossroads of world financial markets. We are the world's fourth largest economy and second largest global investor. We have a unique combination of assets, giving Britain a vast global reach. In a world in which physical geography matters less and less, we should not think of Britain as being on the periphery of anything. We are not on the edge of some core vision of Europe; we are not an adjunct to the USA; we are not an island offshore of anywhere. Quite the reverse; today's network world places us right at the heart of the global system, and that should underlie the UK's strategic position.
There is no doubt that the main requirement of our foreign policy should be to protect and promote our interests, both immediately and in the longer term. We all have vested interests in stability and peace. However, with the speed of technological developments, our interests are even more vulnerable to developments around the world. Therefore, our strategic interests need to be served by an ever more complex set of requirements.
It is therefore sad that the Government seem to have only one hook on which to hang their foreign policy—namely, an ethical foreign policy. They enunciated that policy at the beginning of their term, but it has proved to be disastrous. They claim that their ethical foreign policy has been a roaring success, but the examples of the rocks on which that ship has foundered are littered over the three years of their governance. Whether it was the treatment of Chinese protesters during the visit of the Chinese President, the failure to sign the United Nations resolution condemning China's record on human rights, supplying weapons that have ended up in the hands of child soldiers, the leaking of Select Committee reports or diplomatic gaffes in Asia and Israel, no one can now believe in the Government's ethical and moral credentials, or even in their competence.
Mr. Gapes: Does the hon. Lady recall when the Commonwealth had 48 members, and 47 of them were against one member? Could she tell us who was Prime Minister then?
Mrs. Gillan: This is not a quiz show. Quite frankly, Labour Members' levity simply shows the disrespect with which they are treating this debate. They have reacted just as I was getting to the tricky bit, where I remind the Minister that, in his interview with the New Statesman, he himself condemned the ethical dimension to the Government's foreign policy. I believe that he himself admitted that the ethical dimension had been
consigned to the memory hole.
Rest in peace.
Mr. Hain indicated dissent.
Mrs. Gillan: Those were the words in the article.
Mr. Hain: No.
Mrs. Gillan: I advise the Minister to go and refresh his memory by reading the article.
Mr. Hain: Really—try harder. If the hon. Lady were quoting from the New Statesman in context and

361
accurately, she would find that that statement did not appear in quotations from me. She should, therefore, withdraw her remarks.
Mrs. Gillan: I should withdraw nothing. Methinks, again, that the Minister protests too much. He admitted to the interviewer that the ethical dimension had been
consigned to the memory hole
within the Foreign Office. The ethical dimension stands condemned out of the Minister's own mouth—and my goodness does he find that embarrassing.
One of the first considerations in foreign policy must be whether to act alone or in tandem with others. No foreign policy can truly be conducted alone, but there can be problems with any proposals that would lock our foreign policy capability within a European common foreign and security policy—as, for example, full political union in the European Union would inevitably require. Not only could we possibly sacrifice our agility in protecting our own interests, but we could seriously impede our ability to help others. Acting solo will still frequently be right, as will acting jointly, but we should not have our hands tied by placing the United Kingdom in a European straitjacket.
Evidence has been provided by the way in which the situation in Zimbabwe has developed in the past few months. It seemed to be an extraordinary move on the Government's part to choose the European Union as the vehicle to send warnings to President Mugabe about the events that were unfolding with land invasions and killings. A message more loaded with colonial connotations could not have been imagined.
The right partners, and the right international vehicle, should have been the Commonwealth. It is within the family of the Commonwealth that there could have been the opportunity of diminishing the violence and providing the catalyst for constructive negotiations. Instead, we now have a situation in which I understand even United Kingdom observers have been effectively prevented from being part of the observer group at the forthcoming elections. That is not the most satisfactory of outcomes.
The Commonwealth is, after all, a ready-made network. It has perhaps too readily allowed itself to be seen as an organisation for a former age, but it should represent the future. It is a multi-ethnic global grouping, geographically random in a world in which geography matters ever less, but closely linked by ties of history, trade culture, language and friendship.
Mr. Bob Russell: Would the hon. Lady care to say something about British dependent territories—which no hon. Member has yet mentioned in the debate? Should not the House be reminded that the residents of those territories were full British citizens until 1981?
Mrs. Gillan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me about the British overseas territories. If he had listened to speeches that I have made previously in this Parliament, he would know that I am a great supporter of the British overseas territories. Indeed, I have been extremely worried about perceived attacks on their activities and independence. Occasionally, the Government
362
have been seen to be putting pressure on the overseas territories to introduce legislation that they did not wish to introduce. I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the overseas territories. I, too, would include them in the picture.
I was talking about the Commonwealth. The modern age is one of networks, and the Commonwealth has a golden opportunity to become a really powerful grouping for tomorrow. The Commonwealth is far less constrained by bureaucracy than other international structures. It comprises about one quarter of the world's population and about a quarter of its nations, and it has a growing waiting list. It also contains some of the fastest growing and most dynamic countries on earth.
The Commonwealth of the future has huge potential in advocating good governance and as a source of stability that can attract investment and wealth creation. That must be the agenda of the Commonwealth network of the future, although it must be admitted that today's Commonwealth does have a long way to go to achieve that.
As I said, the crisis in Zimbabwe demonstrates the need for the Commonwealth to step up when a member state starts to run off the road. We believe that any credible foreign policy would contribute to the development of the Commonwealth as a global network for the benefit of its members—as a force for stability, as a means of promoting the values of the rule of law, democracy and the open economy, and as a possible basis for the better distribution of aid.
We should be flexible in choosing the right partner for any task that we have in hand. Sometimes, we will want to work extremely closely with our European neighbours; sometimes, with individual allies. Circumstances vary and events change. In an age of exceptional fluidity, we cannot allow ourselves and our policies to become frozen and ossified in a ponderous bureaucratic system that can only respond at the speed of the slowest.
To be able to do any of that, we have to be able to make some choices of our own. We have to maintain and modernise our armed forces, and—yes—we have to do so within NATO, not outside it. NATO, not the European Union, is the key. However, that is not the same as saying that there is no strong case for greater European defence co-operation and a much stronger European branch of NATO. There is such a case. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) who, back in June 1992, started the process with the Petersberg tasks.
European nations need to make their own choices about carrying more of the burden of defence. The current plan for a common European security and defence policy involves neither that nor a stepping up of Europe's capability. Most European Union countries are cutting their defence budgets. By placing the matter within the European Union framework, we will encase it in committees, bureaucracy and trap it in the creeping embrace of EU institutions.
Concerns about that issue have been echoed by the United States Administration. ESDI seems to be have been designed by people who are concerned, first, with endowing the EU with another of the trappings of statehood. The actual practical viability of a European army comes a poor second. At its worst, in some parts of the continent, it is a visible expression of a chilling and growing anti-Americanism which I hope will be resisted.

363
There are those who resent the emergence of the USA as the sole remaining superpower and believe that the EU must form itself into a countervailing superpower. I look forward to hearing the Minister give us the Government's views on that issue.
We believe that that mindset is worse than simply being unrealistic and vain—it is positively harmful. If it encourages America to turn its eyes further westward, to the powerful allure of Asia, we shall have inflicted a devastating blow to the basis of our security: the Atlantic alliance. For that reason alone, it is essential that Britain should lead Europe and clarify our position on the national missile defence programme. There may be resistance to it, but that is what leadership is all about. Just as, in the 1980s, the then Conservative Government took on the one-sided disarmers of CND and won the argument with the public, today, the Prime Minister must be prepared to do the same. After all, the role should not be unfamiliar: in the 1980s, he and his colleagues, including the Minister of State, were all engaged in the argument, albeit on the other side.
Like the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, I look forward to the Minister's comments on the Government's stance toward the national missile defence programme. Despite the recent negotiations between President Putin and President Clinton, and their welcome announcements on reducing weapons-grade materials, the world is not a safe place. It is even more essential that we gain an insight into the Government's thinking as countries such as Libya, North Korea, Iraq and Syria continue to develop weapons with increasing range, yet the Government have failed to enlighten us. Their disingenuousness is revealed in their amendment, which is really a means whereby Ministers can avoid telling us their true position.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On previous occasions, Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen have told the House that they support national missile defence. Would the Conservatives support NMD even if it had the effect of breaching the anti-ballistic missile treaty?
Mrs. Gillan: When sharing a platform with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have made it clear that I would encourage the Government to participate fully in the NMD programme. The Government themselves have been extremely ambivalent: the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said that he did not like the idea of a star wars programme, limited or unlimited, but the Secretary of State for Defence said subsequently that the history of our close friendship with the United States meant that the Government were very sympathetic to such requests. It is not for me to answer for the Government: we will be letting the Government off the hook if we do not press for clarification to be given tonight, not only for the House, but for the wider audience watching the debate.
Mr. Hain: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gillan: No—I have been generous in giving way and I am about to conclude my speech.
The modern world is faster, more integrated and interdependent and more potentially lethal than it has ever been before. We need to exploit our potential and the
364
assets of this country to ensure that our foreign policy contributes to peace and stability and the prosperity of an increasing number of people around the globe. I look forward to listening to the Minister lay out the Government's position.
8.13 pm
Mr. Mike Gapes: Reference has been made to the situation 20 years ago, and I should like to take the House back to that time. I believe that any future threat to the unity of European countries, the United States and NATO is more likely to come from the return of the prince of darkness, Richard Perle, to a position of influence in the United States Administration under the new Bush presidency, if that comes to pass, than from the limited development of practical measures to strengthen defence capabilities and co-operation in Europe, on which the European strategic defence identity programme is based.
Reference has been made to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the 1980s. No doubt the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has the information in his files, but I should like to place on the record here and now that I was a member of CND for many years. I am no longer a member, having broken with the organisation in 1989 because of my belief that unilateralism was a tactic, not the principle. I took the position that tactical steps forward were required.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gapes: Let me finish these remarks first.
I recall that in the early 1980s, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) addressed the CND national demonstration in Hyde park. That was what I wanted to say when I attempted to intervene on the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is probably glad that he did not give way to me. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats was subsequently given the nickname of "Paddy Backdown" by people involved in the peace movement, because of his party's change of policy during the 1980s. We all have our baggage, and it is not right for the Liberal Democrats sanctimoniously to attempt to appear above it all and to score points against other parties; they should recognise their own history and change of beliefs.
Dr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Gapes: I shall now give way to a man who has not changed his position, but I shall comment on that when I reply to his intervention.
Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for skilfully anticipating my first point, which is that whereas the Liberals and many Labour Members, such as him, have changed their position, some of us have been saying the same thing all along. However, is not the hon. Gentleman telling the House that when we faced a threat from a nuclear superpower, he wanted to give up, unconditionally, our nuclear deterrent, whereas now, when we are not facing such a threat, he wants to keep it?
Mr. Gapes: No, what I am saying is that a man called Mikhail Gorbachev came on to the scene, international

365
relations were transformed, the old cold-war adversarial politics became out of date, and we had to move on. The hon. Gentleman's position has not changed since the 1980s—in fact, it is the same as it was in 1953, when Joseph Stalin died. That is the problem with a certain brand of Conservative thinking. As the world changes and becomes more complex, as international relations change and as technology changes, politicians have a duty to respond to that changing environment. The ability and willingness to do so marks the difference between a political party and a sect.
The debate gives us the opportunity to discuss several different issues, including national missile defence. I shall not make extensive remarks in that respect as I had an Adjournment debate on the subject on 17 May in which I set out my views. However, I fear that we face a potentially serious problem, which is the decoupling of the United States and Europe if the US goes ahead with NMD and unilaterally abrogates the anti-ballistic missile treaty. The recent discussions between President Clinton and President Putin were welcome, but we must recognise that the two men did not agree on that issue. I fear that unless we in Europe unite to send out clearer, more forceful signals across the Atlantic, the misperception that we are not worried about the implications of NMD for future security co-operation might arise in some quarters in the US.
I believe that we all—even the Conservatives—must think through the implications of implicit or explicit support for a programme that breaches a centrepiece of arms control, the ABM treaty. If that treaty goes, there will be no START 3, the process of arms control will unravel, and there will be an increase in the number of Chinese missiles, which will have knock-on effects in India, which will have knock-on consequences in Pakistan—we will have issued a proliferator's charter. That is the danger facing the world in coming years. We have to preserve a measure of anti-ballistic missile control, because if we do not, the counter-measures adopted will include an increase in the number of nuclear weapons and their worldwide proliferation.
Mr. John Hayes: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that such unilateral action by the United States, which he describes as severing the link, is likely to be exacerbated if America regards Europe—a common European defence policy and, ultimately, a common European defence force—as an alternative to NATO? Will that not make it easier for isolationists in America to pursue not only the policy of which the hon. Gentleman warns, but an entirely different military course from that followed by western Europe?
Mr. Gapes: The European strategic defence identity is how to get the 2 million-strong armed forces of NATO's European members to be capable of deploying 50,000 or 60,000 personnel in an effective action at one time. It is not beyond the wit of European countries to do that. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the recent Defence Committee report, in which we went into such issues in considerable detail. The report contains much information that might be helpful to him and reassure him that the issue is one of practical measures to make the European pillar of the Atlantic alliance more effective, for which
366
the Americans have always called. Clearly, if the message that such moves are a substitute for NATO is somehow put across, it will cause the Americans alarm. That is not the intention or the policy of this and other European Governments. Indeed, in the St. Malo declaration, the French and British Governments agreed a formula that strengthens, not weakens, the European pillar of NATO.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman's honest assertion that strengthening the European pillar will strengthen NATO as a whole is not shared by all our European neighbours. Many in Europe see the political project of the united states of Europe as intrinsically tied to the establishment of a discrete military identity.
Mr. Gapes: I do not want to labour the point; I shall move on. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Select Committee report.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I did not care much for the hon. Gentleman's historical analysis, but I am rather more impressed by his contemporary analysis. In reaching the conclusion that he has, did he take any account of the letter written by Senator Trent Lott, which was signed by 25 Republican Senators and sent to President Clinton on 19 April, in which it was argued that even President Clinton's limited proposal was inadequate and that a future Administration should go very much further? Will that assist stability?
Mr. Gapes: Absolutely not. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing that to my attention.
I want to address the wider aspects of the debate. Although the speeches of Liberal Democrat Members have referred to the question of arms sales, it is interesting that that is not mentioned in the motion. I wonder why. Perhaps it is because there are different views in the Liberal Democrat party.
Mr. Campbell: No, it is carelessness.
Mr. Gapes: All right.
If we accept that all 180-plus countries in the world have a right to national self-defence, and we do not want every country to try to build an indigenous defence industry, some arms transfers from some countries to others will be inevitable. In such circumstances, we cannot take the purist position of saying that there should be no arms sales anywhere. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that that is not his party's position. We therefore need greater transparency, United Nations and European Union registers—this Government have been very much at the forefront of calls for their introduction—and greater accountability to Parliament and for what happens. I look forward to the day when Select Committees have the powers of those in some other Parliaments on scrutiny of such items and appropriation budgets. However, that is another debate for another day.
We have made considerable progress over the past few years and have certainly moved quite a way since the scandals of arms to Iraq and the Scott report. However, there is more to be done and I hope that the Government will introduce legislation in the not too distant future. My fundamental problem with the Liberal Democrat motion lies in the phrasing of its first sentence, which states:

367
the strategic interests of the United Kingdom will best be served by collective action.
That does not allow for any national decision that is not tied to a collective organisation. Therefore, the Government's amendment is right to state that the UK's strategic interests
are normally best served through collective action
because there are circumstances in which a country must act alone to defend its territory, citizens and interests. It would be a big mistake to adopt a position that implies that there are no circumstances in which a country would take such action. Of course, doing so is permitted under article 51 of the UN charter. Not providing for that is an error in the motion.
The Defence Committee recently published a report on the annual reporting cycle of the Ministry of Defence. In it, we drew attention to the fact that the defence budget is under great pressure. We are doing more and more and expecting our service personnel to work far more efficiently—increasingly in complex international situations. The report states that there is cumulative evidence of problems of overstretch and that the finances should be rebalanced in the spending review.
My plea to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is that we recognise that if, as a permanent member of the Security Council, we are to do excellent work such as that in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and that done by British personnel whom I met who are monitors on the Kuwait-Iraq border or those pursuing Operation Bolton—which is a means of stopping the aggressive fascist regime of Saddam Hussein launching a further attack against the small states in the Gulf—resources must be made available in the comprehensive spending review.
Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gapes: I cannot give way again; I am sorry but I must conclude.
Strategic interests are about more than international organisations. I had the pleasure today of hosting a reception in the House for Voluntary Service Overseas. VSO sends young people from this country to assist in developing countries worldwide. An early-day motion on today's Order Paper highlights the areas in which it is involved. I believe very strongly that non-governmental organisations and the voluntary sector have a very important role in promoting Britain's strategic interests. Likewise, the BBC World Service, the British Council and other bodies that are funded to some, or to a large, extent by the taxpayer are very important in representing this country and fostering its perception in the rest of the world.
For a country such as ours, which is dependent on international trade and which has an international language and excellent academic institutions and worldwide links, it is vital that we are seen to be internationalists and that we are internationalists. That also applies in the European context. We gain much more from our involvement in Europe and our position in the European Union precisely because we are members of it than we ever would if we were to adopt the narrow-minded isolationism that some on the Opposition Benches wish to pursue.
I have covered several different areas, but owing to interventions I shall conclude. I hope that the House will have further opportunities to discuss these wide-ranging issues in the not-too-distant future.
8.29 pm
Mr. John Hayes: I have only a couple of points to make. The first is that when Britain's strategic interests are debated in the House, a fundamental difference between the parties is revealed. The Conservative party is the only truly national party—the only party for which national interest is at the heart of all its considerations of foreign and international affairs. That difference is rooted in the history of political parties and parliamentary debate and is partly the result of the liberal elite and the liberal establishment—[Laughter.] I use those phrases not because they are topical and popular but because they have always been the terms by which I refer to the middle-class left.
Mr. Bob Russell: Middle class? Me?
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman attempts to distract me from my main theme.
The difference may be explained partly by the psyche of the left. National interest is always considered grudgingly and unenthusiastically, as a matter of acquiescence, by the liberal left. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) looks at me with some surprise, but he will remember the great debate between Gladstone and Disraeli in 1876. [Laughter.] I know that the Minister for the Armed Forces, is not as familiar with these historical matters as some other hon. Members are. I do not blame him for that; I blame his teachers.
Mr. Russell: He went to Oxford.
Mr. Hayes: That is even worse. I blame his teachers and lament the fate of his pupils.
The debate in 1876 about the Bulgarian atrocities was between Gladstone, who believed that Britain should take military action in pursuit of a greater moral interest, and Disraeli, who said that
the permanent and abiding interest of England
should lie at the heart of our considerations about when to intervene, use force, commit money and risk lives in an overseas adventure.
The nonconformist conscience may be a laudable thing in certain circumstances but it should never be allowed to subvert or obscure Britain's national interest. That historical philosophical difference legitimately and genuinely lies at the heart of the difference between the parties when we consider these matters.
Mr. Keetch rose—
Mr. Hayes: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will no doubt tell me more about the Bulgarian atrocities of 1876.
Mr. Keetch: I did not intend to mention the Bulgarian atrocities. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that his party is the little Englander party, whereas our party and the Labour party may be internationalist parties. We should be quite clear about that, because I remember another Conservative politician mentioning wars in far-off places between people of whom we knew nothing. Does he agree that that attitude still exists in the Conservative party?
Mr. Hayes: No, and I will use another historical reference to illustrate why I do not agree with that. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) talked about a narrow-minded isolationism just as the hon. Member for

369
Hereford (Mr. Keetch) talked about a little Englander mentality. When there was that debate in the 19th century between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the Conservative party was the imperialist party that looked with more than affection—with loyalty, indeed—to the countries and peoples in the empire, while the Liberals were more narrow minded and were often reluctant imperialists.
That is not exclusively true, and you will no doubt point to Joseph Chamberlain as a Liberal imperialist in your next intervention, but it has to be said that he became more of a little Englander than many of the Tories who survived that debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must remember to use the correct language and that if he uses the words "you" or "your" he is addressing the Chair. He must also remember that he should be addressing the Chair and not turning his back on it.
Mr. Hayes: I apologise profusely, Sir Alan. I know that you are very familiar with these matters, being a student of the Conservative party's history. Perhaps this is an appropriate time to move on to my second major point. The first point, Sir Alan, was—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is having a rash of little mistakes this evening. I should be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Hayes: It must be my excitement and enthusiasm in dealing with interventions from Liberal Members.
Mr. Spellar: First, let me give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to clear up his confusion between Joseph Chamberlain and Neville Chamberlain. While he is trying to wrap the Tory party in the patriotic flag, can he say whether he approved of the Labour party insisting that Churchill should lead the country in the second world war and forming a national Government, which the Labour party has always done? His attempts to smear the Labour and Liberal parties in this regard are quite despicable.
Mr. Hayes: There is no confusion between Joseph and Neville Chamberlain. It was Joseph Chamberlain who, in the 1906 election, pursued a policy of tariff reform—which could be caricatured as an isolationist, little Englander policy—which cost the coalition of which he was a part so dear electorally.
There are times when national interest becomes paramount in pursuit of a noble objective, and the Minister uses the example of the second world war. Of course I acknowledge that there are many good, noble and patriotic people of all parties in the House, but the bottom line is that there is a deep philosophical difference, when push comes to shove, on the issue of national interest. No one in the House forgets it completely, but it is a matter of how high a priority one gives it. I was illustrating that point by reference to the debate between Gladstone and Disraeli. There should not be any disagreement between the Liberal Democrats and me on that issue.
My second point is that the fundamental premise adopted by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) at the beginning of his
370
speech seemed to me to be flawed. He said that the popular wisdom was that a world post-mutually assured destruction, in which the old certainties and inertia had disappeared, was a less secure world; but the real issue is not the implications of the changing power relations and balance of armouries between the great nations. Much more important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) alone has pointed out, is the changing nature of technology and communications.
The real change that brought about the necessary reappraisal of the way in which we deal with our strategic interests and our international affairs comes from changes in international communications. It is true to say that the world becomes a less certain place as it becomes more flexible. It is also true to say that the cultural and commercial changes that have taken place, at a pace that few could have anticipated, over the past decade—and will take place at an ever-increasing pace because of further changes in technology—create different imperatives and a new dynamic. Contrary to the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, that is much more important than the issue of the post-mutually assured destruction reassessment of defence priorities.
The second mistake that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes is believing that acknowledgement that the world is more uncertain and more rapidly changing—a more global place—necessitates more global institutions and a supranational approach to the organisation of defence. I suggest that it reinforces the need for national identity. As people become less certain and as the world becomes less secure, the need becomes ever greater for a strong sense of belonging that is rooted in history and part of a continuum that draws on the collective wisdom of ages.
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman has several times mentioned my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is a Scotsman who is proud of his Scottish and British traditions and who can in no way be described as a little Englander. My right hon. and learned Friend said nothing that suggested that the United Kingdom should give up its ability to act independently when it needed to. He simply said that a less certain world required international agreements, and he listed them cogently and coherently.
Mr. Hayes: With respect, the motion deals only with collective action, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no significant comment about separate, national action. That was pointed out by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. The motion and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution both lack balance. I do not say that international affairs do not necessitate alliances and collaboration, but the exclusion of national action appears to be at the heart of the differences between us in this debate.
This rapidly changing and less secure world makes a case for an enhanced sense of belonging through a reinforced nationhood and the opportunity for national action. It also renders inflexible institutions less, not more, relevant. The problem with the European Union as the basis for a common defence policy is that it is unsuited to the flexibility that is required. That is why I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others who, like many in the EU, see it as the way forward.

371
The hon. Member for Ilford, South talked about the strengthening of the European pillar, but that will undoubtedly give the isolationists in America—many of whom are on the right—the opportunity to make a case for unilateral American action. That is what I wish to avoid. We should reinforce those institutions such as NATO—an association of sovereign nations—and the Commonwealth, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham referred, which have the necessary flexibility to deal with a more rapidly changing world. That is why we reject the EU as an appropriate institution to undertake the sort of collaborative action that will be increasingly necessary.
Anyone who has any doubts about what I have said needs only to examine President Chirac's perspective. On 30 May, he addressed the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union and spoke about "reinforced co-operation", and that was fair enough. However, he also talked about decisions
ultimately being the prerogative of the United Nations Security Council, which is the only body with the international legitimacy to decide on the use of force.
That clearly is not the case. NATO is the paramount body in that sense, because it has secured and guaranteed peace in western Europe and the rest of the western world, for my lifetime and longer. President Chirac also argued for the creation of a necessary assertiveness that
requires us to define our own objectives and to implement our own policies, and to use every resource to achieve them.
There is good will in the Chamber about the role of NATO, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Ilford, South is entirely honourable in his wish to strengthen the European pillar. It stems from his conviction that that would be supportive of NATO and necessary for its future success, but I doubt that that view is universally held. I do not think it is shared by significant numbers of significant people in the European Union, who I believe see the matter as part of a bigger political objective.
In conclusion, I believe that our strategic affairs, policy and perspective should be based on three things. First, our strategic approach should be based on a willingness to support our friends and allies, and especially our historic friends and allies in the Commonwealth and in our former colonies.
Secondly, it should be based on a determination never to endanger the lives of our citizens—including our troops—merely to indulge the conscience of the liberal elite, still less that of the liberal elite of other nations in Europe. Thirdly, it should be based on a proud, rigorous and unstinting determination to defend our national interest.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife described that approach as visceral. I believe that it is a proud and vigorous approach, and a popular one. I suggest to the House that it is shared by the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country, regardless of how they vote in general elections.
8.46 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Liberal Democrat motion refers to the "successful military campaigns" in Kosovo. I applaud the actions of individual service men but this debate provides a justified opportunity to ask questions which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will answer when he winds up.
372
An article in today's edition of The Scotsman is headed "British NATO Troops Clash with Serbs". It states:
British NATO peacekeepers shot and wounded three Serb men in the Kosovan Serb enclave of Gracianica after a senior British officer was attacked in the town as he tried to calm a demonstration.
"There was no question, my life was in danger, and our lives were very much threatened," said Brigadier Richard Shirreff, commanding of 7th Armoured Brigade, or "Desert Rats", after the incident at 11 am yesterday.
I emphasise that it is no part of my case to criticise the troops involved. For two years on national service as a teenager, I was proud to wear the emblem of the Desert Rats in 7th Armoured Brigade, but the incident raises a question about which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will say something.
What exactly is going on in Kosovo? Under that scorching sunshine, it seems that a situation is developing in which troops from Britain and other KFOR countries are suffering the opprobrium of both sides. The House should be told exactly what that situation is.
The BBC News website today has a report that states:
Five people were wounded in the attack in which two grenades were thrown from a passing car.
A British military spokesman, Flight Lieutenant Rob Hannam, said the troops believed they and the brigadier, who is responsible for security in the town, were in imminent danger.
He said troops fired warning shots into the air. When that failed to disperse the demonstrators, one or more of the soldiers fired into the crowd.
What does the Ministry of Defence expect to happen in the next few blisteringly hot summer months? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to that question when he winds up the debate.
I was lucky enough to have an Adjournment debate at 1.55 on the morning of 22 May, starting at column 836 of the Official Report, when the House went very late. Reference was made to Richard Butler and sanctions to Iraq. I note that last week, Richard Butler was reported to have said that he now thinks that sanctions will serve no purpose. In the Adjournment debate, I referred at some length to the visit that I made with the former Irish Taoiseach Albert Reynolds, who is not a naive man, and to the fact that we thought that sanctions were simply counter-productive.
We are grateful to the Liberal Democrats for having initiated this important debate. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who opened the debate, referred to Richard Butler, and I wish to refer specifically to Mr. Butler's book. I am not asking the Minister to respond to these somewhat detailed questions, but I think that they should be put on the record.
On page 4 of his book, Richard Butler says about Saddam launching another attack:
Every thoughtful leader in the region assumes he may do so again.
The fact is that Iran, Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have all established embassies in Baghdad and are taking a different view. Indeed, it is reported that the Saudis are looking—ambiguously, at any rate—at the Qatar proposals that have been put forward by the Gulf Cooperation Council. In these circumstances, what is the Government's position? Do they agree with Richard Butler?

373
Secondly, do the Government agree with the scenario described on page 5 of Richard Butler's book? He writes:
A hit squad from somewhere in the Middle East travels to New York City carrying a one-litre bottle filled with one of the several chemical weapons agents we have long known Saddam Hussein to be developing. Using a simple sprayer (like one that a gardener or house painter might own), they diffuse the contents into the air over Times Square on a Saturday night or into the main concourse at Grand Central Station at 5:30 P.M. on a weekday evening. Hundreds, maybe thousands of people die agonizing deaths as a result. Because of their own handling of the substance and the strategic concern to maintain ambiguity over the source of the attack, the terrorists may have to be prepared to die themselves.
There should be a considered response to this statement. Richard Butler is, I would say, dreaming up this situation, but the Government may take a different view and base policy on a hypothetical threat.
Page 17 of Butler's book refers to EMPA. The Minister is a scientist, and he will know that this stands for ethyl methyl-phosphoric acid. Butler says:
The chemists had swabbed each of the pieces of metal to remove and collect the surface residues for analysis. As one might expect, they found a spectrum of substances on the metal surfaces, ranging from ordinary dirt to chemicals of various kinds. But there were also clear traces of a chemical called EMPA, short for ethyl methyl-phosphoric acid. It was this finding that had caused Horst Reeps to blanch. EMPA is a degradation product of one and only one known compound in the universe—the chemical VX, one of the most toxic substances ever made.
Are the Government prepared to submit the evidence for this, which I know weighs heavily with the Prime Minister, to R.J.P. Williams, the emeritus professor of inorganic chemistry at Oxford, fellow of Wadham, who is recognised as the greatest European expert on EMPA?
My last question on Butler's book is this: what is the Government's reaction to chapter 8, headed "Kofi Annan Goes to Baghdad"? In this chapter, Butler is deeply critical of the United Nations Secretary-General. They cannot both be right, and I am entitled to ask who the British Government believe is right.
My Adjournment debate took place at 1.55 in the morning on 22 May. I asked three questions and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office could have been forgiven for not answering them at that time of the morning. However, they bear repetition. First, I said:
the United Nations has been reporting since August 1999 on the stock situation in Iraq involving food and medical supplies, and these monthly reports show a satisfactory distribution picture. Why are Her Majesty's Government continuing to identify a picture of hoarding of these humanitarian supplies?
Secondly, I said:
the President of the Security Council in January 1999 reminded the Security Council that there should be monitoring of the impact of sanctions on the human condition of those countries under sanctions, and also that the chairpersons of sanctions committees should visit their respective countries to obtain first-hand information on the ground. Why does that not happen in the case of Iraq, and what are the Government planning to do about it?
Finally, I asked about the fact that there was
no sign of an end to the stalemate between the UN Security Council and the Government of Iraq with regard to resolution 1284. This stalemate is entirely at the expense of the civilian population. Keeping that fact in mind, what do the Government propose as an initiator of the resolution to end the stalemate?—[Official Report, 22 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 835.]
374
Those are important questions, but as other hon. Members want to speak, I shall leave it at that.
8.56 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Earlier, the Chamber took on the air of a confession box as, for a while, Members on both sides of the House confessed to their membership, or otherwise, of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I shall begin by making my own confession. I think that I am still a member of CND; I certainly would not have been seen dead without my CND badge when I was younger. More important, I was a member of an even better organisation—Doctors against the Bomb.
I am now a fully paid-up supporter of my party's policy on nuclear weapons but, deep down in the heart, a doubt lingers as to whether the male politicians in this world of ours have really got it right—I suspect that they are all stark raving mad, but enough of that.
I want to address an issue that has not been raised so far and on which the UK could really make some impact. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), this country is uniquely placed between the USA and Europe, with huge links to Commonwealth countries. We must thus be the nation best placed to influence the greatest number and to strengthen the United Nations. That is what I shall talk about primarily.
At the beginning of this week, I attended a lecture at Kew gardens in my constituency. It was world environment day. The lecture was given by Michel Batiste from UNESCO. He was speculating on whether the world had a future and on what we could do to influence the world's future. He presented two options, one of which was that the USA should rule the world; it was the strongest nation, and we all had to accept that and bow down under the yoke.
After making that suggestion, he argued strongly that the United Nations was the only truly world body that could do anything about securing our future. He called on everyone present to do all in their power to strengthen the UN.
Why does the UN matter so much? It is tempting to dismiss it as a powerless sideshow in global politics; it has to be supported, but those who are interested in it are mainly elderly academics and—dare I say?—anoraks. Why do we not, ask the hardliners, deal directly with the power brokers in the G7, NATO, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation? Let us deal directly with them, they say, so that the really powerful nations can get their own way. They suggest that that is a much easier and quicker way of doing things. The strongest wins every time.
The world must have a body of member states that can challenge each other on abuses of human rights, on rotten trade agreements and on the invasion of territory. We have to attempt to create such a world order. However, the United Nations was created 50 years ago and it desperately needs reform. It is constantly bypassed by the stronger countries, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. Its recent peacekeeping operations in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Bosnia—the list is not in the right chronological order—have all been a failure and everyone has deplored what has happened.

375
We want discussion on the reform of the United Nations. First and most important, its dues must be paid in full by every member country. The recent withholding of $300 million by the United States to win family planning concessions was outrageous. I am astonished that the British Government did not condemn that more strongly. We must all pay our dues—even the mighty United States of America. It is no good our complaining of weaknesses in the United Nations if we do not give it the resources to do its job. If it does not do the job properly with the right resources, we then have to spend more money clearing up the mess. Where are the economies to be made in that?
Secondly, the Security Council has the prime responsibility for international peace and security. However, there are two classes of members on the Security Council. There are five permanent members, any one of whom can veto decisions. China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States can hold the world to ransom single-handedly. The structure must be revisited. Perhaps the General Assembly should be allowed to challenge it. The nine other members of the Security Council have to be elected every two years. Why are the permanent members so safe? Perhaps we should review who they are.
A constitutional conference needs to be called to discuss reform of the United Nations. Why do the Government not take the lead on that? To set an example, why could this country not refer a resolution that we wish to veto to the General Assembly for decision? Perhaps other countries would follow suit.
The General Assembly needs revision. It needs to have a more democratic basis and a better weighting of votes. The millennium summit of the UN will be held in September and I plead with the Government to try to pursue reform of the UN at that summit.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) criticised the United States for not ratifying treaties, but why are we not taking the lead on ratifying the treaty on the International Criminal Court? Why is that taking so long? It is five years since the Scott report was published and two years since the arms White Paper was produced, so why do we still not have legislation to control the arms trade and arms brokering?
The annual report is very welcome, but the phrase, "We only export arms if they will not be used for external aggression or for internal repression," sickens me. I do not know how Ministers can repeat it like parrots. They do not believe what they are saying; I do not believe what they are saying. Why are we not leading the world on that?
Why are we not finding ways to make the world financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, answerable to the United Nations? Why should they always get away with it?
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the United Kingdom is uniquely placed, by our history and our treaties, to reform the United Nations and to lead the world. I was proud to be present in the Foreign Office when the new Government announced a foreign policy with an ethical dimension and, as a weak and feeble woman, I nearly cried when I heard those words; indeed, I get emotional just thinking about that now. We had a new Government who would give a new moral lead to the rest of the world. Sadly, however, that has not happened.
376
I am no dove, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife will tell the House. I fully supported the previous Government's actions in Iraq and this Government's actions in Kosovo, and I am proud of what they have done in Sierra Leone. However, they have left much undone, especially on arms sales. Indonesia, Sri Lanka and other countries all over the world have received arms from us, and they should not have done. All over the world, there are questionable trade agreements that may lead to environmental damage. We have had to make excuses because British companies, encouraged by the Government, have been involved in projects that have caused human rights abuses and environmental damage. We have to do something about that.
Why do not the Government stop being so timid? They are constantly looking over their shoulder because they are terrified of offending anybody, especially the United States, and of taking a stand. We are a great people, and the Government have a large majority. Why do they not show the world what we can do?
9.7 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their motion. However, I shall do so in classic Liberal Democrat form by combining damnation with praise in a strange admixture by adding the caveat that the inclusion of Sierra Leone was extraneous. It made the motion diffuse and was done simply to bring forth pedantic criticism.
Surely what we did in Sierra Leone was a successful action in support of a friendly, legitimate democratic Government with whom we have a special relationship because the country is an ex-colony and a member of the Commonwealth. Our action was in support of United Nations action, and troops, and by doing what we did we saved life and limb. Frankly, I was surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) commented that we went there to save diamonds. We went to save life and limb—in the most hideously literal sense, as some of the terrible pictures from that country show.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: When the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to check the Official Report, he will find that I did not say that we went to Sierra Leone to save diamonds; I asked how we would defend ourselves against the caricature that we intervene only when issues such as oil and diamonds are at stake. I did not represent the Government's position, which I have consistently supported, in the way that he has described.
Mr. Savidge: We defend ourselves with the fact that we went to Sierra Leone to save life and limb. We succeeded in doing so by going in quickly rather than waiting for a United Nations resolution, and we were correct to do so. We should congratulate our troops and our Government on that.
In any case, I regard that issue as a diversion because the crucial issue is weapons of mass destruction, which the Liberal Democrats were right to raise. I totally agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that since the cold war we have had a decade of inertia that has led to a great increase in our peril. Again, we should congratulate the Government, particularly on what they did in the nuclear non-proliferation review conference in New York.

377
We should remember the pessimism with which many of us went into the conference, and the acute apprehension that we felt during that conference, yet, at the end of it, there was agreement between the five nuclear weapons states—the five UN Security Council members—in the statement to which the motion refers. There was real meaningful dialogue between those five states and the members of the New Agenda Coalition. There was real involvement and discussion with the non-aligned countries. As a result, the conference came out with a successful agreed statement.
I believe that the British delegation played a crucial role in each stage of that agreement. That was an important success. Those on the delegation—particularly the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—should be congratulated on their part in that.
Among the positive things in that statement were its positions on the comprehensive test ban treaty, the fissban treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, Israel—I take the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that that was important—India and Pakistan, nuclear weapon-free zones, START 2, START 3 and the need to make further progress in reducing nuclear weapons, working towards the elimination of those weapons. However, we must now see delivery. Therefore, I accept that part of the motion and the Government's response to it.
We need to see delivery. Yesterday, the House debated Northern Ireland. I see a parallel with Northern Ireland. When paramilitary organisations say that they will disarm, I find that encouraging, but when they actually allow their weapons to be inspected, I find that more encouraging. When they start decommissioning, I find that most encouraging of all. I repeat the statement from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife: greater inertia, if anything, creates even greater peril because we are at a watershed.
I am pleased that the leadership of all parties in the House supports the comprehensive test ban treaty. My early-day motion last year showed that the overwhelming majority of Back Benchers from all parties support that—in fact, it gained more support than any early-day motion since the general election.
Obviously, it is encouraging that the Russian Duma has endorsed the test ban treaty. We await in particular the position of the United States and China because they will undoubtedly bring other states in with them. I endorse what the United States Administration are trying to do, but we must desperately seek to encourage Congress to take positive action on the matter.
In the United States, people say that they are worried about rogue states. Banning tests is one of the best protections against rogue states. If they are banned, it will mean that weapons are untested. Weapons that are untested are far less likely to work and weapons that are far less likely to work are far less likely to be used.
The test ban treaty is one of the most verifiable of all treaties, which is another reason to support it. The Government should do everything that they can to encourage our United States allies in Congress to endorse the comprehensive test ban treaty. The House should do
378
everything that it can to support the Government in that. Perhaps we should again support an early-day motion, or find some other way to encourage them.
The fissban treaty is a matter of urgency. Only last month, a convoy of illicit nuclear weapons material was intercepted when being smuggled from the former Soviet Union into Afghanistan. What Russia has said recently about a preparedness to export nuclear weapons technology to other countries is worrying, although I suspect that that may be part of the bargaining that is going on in relation to NMD.
Talking of NMD, I pass on to the ABM treaty. I am glad that it was said that that must be preserved and strengthened, but NMD does cause concern, as does the attitude of the Clinton Administration and, even more, the Bush candidacy, which at times has almost the most naive and most frightening foreign policy since Goldwater. What perhaps causes even more concern is the thought that it could become an election issue and so might not be discussed on a totally rational basis, or be totally based on rational considerations of strategy.
I fear that that is very much a magic and Maginot approach to strategic problems: the sort of magic fix or Maginot line that is supposed to create a miraculous cure for all defence problems. It sounds wonderful until it is tested and found not to work. Not only may it not reduce danger—it could increase danger. If the ABM treaty is torn up, both Russia and China are likely to increase their weapons. It could also destroy reliance on all other treaties.
Even if agreement is reached with Russia, it must also be sought with China, which I know is not party to the bilateral talks. If China is not brought on board, there is the danger that it will increase its weapons and start exporting weapons. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) referred also to the danger of a domino effect across Asia.
Further points have been made. Does the United States believe in deterrence? If the Americans have billions of pounds to spend on national missile defence, might they not increase world security better by spending it on other things, such as helping to stabilise the states of the former Soviet Union and other states, or as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) suggested, putting money into the United Nations?
Even if NMD worked and could overcome decoy systems, what about the possibility of transporting weapons of mass destruction in lorries, in suitcases or by boat?
What if the United States goes for national missile defence? What should Britain's attitude be while we await a decision? Some people would say that the US is our ally, so we must go with whatever it wants. That seems to be the attitude of some of the Tory Europhobes, who are desperately worried about qualified majority voting in Europe, where at least we have a vote, but who do not worry too much about the United States making any decision that it wants, where we have no vote, and expecting us automatically to accept it. I took it that that was the reason for the extraordinary coyness of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) when she was asked what Conservative policy would be if the US decided to tear up the ABM agreements.

379
The United States may offer us other things. There is a possibility of our being offered dollars, jobs or cover. I believe that supporting NMD could bring greater danger not just to the people of Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, but to global security. Therefore, as good allies of the United States, we should be constructively critical and urge caution. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said, there is the danger of a new unilateralism in the United States which could completely undermine nuclear disarmament.
We must make progress on nuclear disarmament, through bilateral and multilateral action, as the Government amendment states. I would add "plurilateral" action. The word "unilateral" was not used, probably for fear of raising old slogans and past sterile arguments, which, surprisingly, were raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, and which might get the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) over-excited, to the point of endangering his health.
However, there is a place for unilateral initiatives and unilateral reciprocal actions. That is particularly true in the case of the United States and Russia. If there is no treaty, the problem can be overcome by taking reciprocal unilateral actions, which do not have to be passed by an awkward Congress or an awkward Duma.
There is also a place for a unilateral response to a reduced threat, which is what has been made by both Conservative and Labour Governments in Britain in the past few years. We should not be frightened of the word unilateral. It has a place, along with other methods of seeking to reduce nuclear weapons, which we must get on with. Reference was made to comments by the Secretary of State for Defence. I believe that he said disarmament would not happen in weeks, days or months. He did not mention years, and I hope that he was not thinking in terms of years. I am certain that we must deliver far more quickly than that. I return to the comment about inertia and peril, and the basic point that, just as we are looking for action to take place in Northern Ireland, so the non-nuclear weapons states are looking to the nuclear weapons states for action.
There is no defence against disaster on a national basis. It must be on an international basis. The Palme commission said that we must have a common security. We can no longer have national security; we need a common security for all mankind.
Some people argue that if national missile defence were technically possible, it could be useful under the control of a United Nations agency in future, when nuclear disarmament was genuinely progressing. That view may be a little starry eyed. At least I am sufficiently realistic to acknowledge that we are considering a distant future. I suspect that all three aspects—the technology, a sufficiently trusted and efficient United Nations agency in an atmosphere of mutual international trust, and enough genuine progress on nuclear disarmament—are distant. However, in the meantime, we must make every endeavour to realise the promises of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and reduce what probably remains the greatest threat to the future of our species.
9.20 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) is passionately committed to nuclear disarmament, but he
380
also has an extraordinary sense of fairness. He has therefore curtailed his remarks to allow me to speak, for which I am most grateful. Doing that is typical of him, although he knows that I profoundly disagree with the thrust of his argument.
Before I deal with the points that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made about the non-proliferation treaty, I want to consider the comments of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). The hon. Gentleman and I have the privilege of sitting side by side on the Select Committee on Defence. We agree more often than most people would anticipate. This evening is one occasion on which I must endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments on Liberal Democrats' past positions on the matters that we are considering.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South is right that, in 1990, the Liberal Democrats called for
a reduction of at least 50 per cent. in real terms in UK defence expenditure, phased in over the remainder of the century—
in other words, in 10 years. Piquancy is added to that statement by the knowledge that three days before the 1992 general election, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) stated on "Newsnight":
I don't believe a 50 per cent. cut is either likely or a policy; nor has it ever been a policy.
However, it was a policy, which was not reversed until the Liberal Democrat party conference of September 1994.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman is conducting an interesting historical review, does he remember that when the Conservative Government introduced "Options for Change", they said that that was the last occasion on which they would cut the defence budget of the United Kingdom as long as they were in power?
Dr. Lewis: When the Conservative Government made cuts in our defences at the end of the cold war and I was not a Member of Parliament, I believed that the cuts went too far. It is interesting to note that when Liberal Democrat or Labour Members are challenged about further cuts, they refer to cuts under the Conservative Government. If they believe that those cuts were too great, they should not advocate more. Yet they often do.
If the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) is not satisfied with the example that I gave earlier of the Liberal Democrats facing both ways, perhaps I could give another. The right hon. Member for Yeovil also stated:
Britain's Trident deterrent is a monstrous folly which we should divest ourselves of as soon as possible.
On another occasion, he stated:
I remain wholly opposed to nuclear weapons. I remain of the firm belief that Britain could afford to get rid of its nuclear weapons tomorrow and would not suffer in consequence.
Yet, again, three days before the 1992 general election in the same "Newsnight" report to which I referred earlier, the right hon. Gentleman stated:
I never took the view that this country did not need an independent deterrent.
That shows that too much unilateralism can be bad for your memory.
Mrs. Gillan: The intervention of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) was

381
disingenuous, because in 1991 he said that there was no intrinsic merit in defence spending. Does not that endorse Conservative policy?
Dr. Lewis: I am shocked that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have made such a statement, and I am even more shocked that I overlooked it in my researches. I feel thoroughly ashamed of myself and I thank my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention.
Let me move on from the points of agreement with the Labour party to the points of disagreement. I intervened on the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to point out the dangers that would accrue to international society and peace if we ever achieved a nuclear-free world, heaven forbid. He responded by implying that I am a nuclear weapons fanatic. He knows all about fanaticism and nuclear weapons as he declared at the height of the cold war:
Unilateral nuclear disarmament offers the only hope of an end to the arms race and the only hope of any chance for peace …
Mr. Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Lewis: No, time is too pressing.
We did not have unilateral nuclear disarmament, but we did have peace. The hon. Member for Ilford, South thinks that that was all thanks to that marvellous Mr. Gorbachev, but I remind him that he and his party were advocating that this country be stripped of its vital nuclear deterrent in the days of Brezhnev, of Andropov and of Chernenko—years before Gorbachev came to power—and that, had that been achieved, the prospect of Gorbachev ever leading the Soviet Union would have been infinitesimal because the hardliners would have beaten NATO. What mattered was that, during those vital years, Ronald Reagan in America and Margaret Thatcher in this country. with the full support of the Conservative party, stood firm for the nuclear deterrent and resisted the arguments that Liberal Democrat and Labour Members have at least had the honesty to admit they supported in those days.
Mr. Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Lewis: I must give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Savidge: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to propound the theory of history that Mr. Gorbachev was brought to power by British nuclear weapons? I am a little puzzled.
Dr. Lewis: I shall briefly enlighten the hon. Gentleman. When the cruise and Pershing deployments were being considered, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties were, with the full support of their leaderships, trying to undermine those deployments. When Britain had to decide whether to replace its strategic nuclear deterrent, a battle was going on in the Kremlin between the hardliners and the reformers. If the hardliners had achieved the unilateral nuclear disarmament of NATO, which is what their measures were meant to achieve, the likelihood of the reformers taking power in the Kremlin would have been very significantly reduced.
382
Let me deal with the non-proliferation treaty, article VI of that treaty and the nuclear-free world. Article VI is often cited in relation to Britain's supposed commitment to nuclear disarmament. The preamble to the treaty states that nuclear disarmament should occur "pursuant to"—that is, in conformity with—
a treaty on general and complete disarmament …
Article VI similarly commits the signatories
to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the arms race at an early date—
which has been achieved—
and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control …
Those last two commitments are about achieving not only a nuclear-free world, but an arms-free world. If people want to convince me and the majority, who I believe think like me, that it would be wise to have a nuclear-free world, they will also have to convince me that they can achieve an arms-free world. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, having the former without the latter would simply make the world safe once again for prolonged, full-scale conventional warfare between the current nuclear powers.
The other day, I had a letter published in the national press on this very subject. I posed a number of questions. These are the questions that I posed then, and these are the questions that I would be grateful if the Minister would consider answering. There are only five; it would be something if the Minister answered only one or two in his winding-up speech.
My first question was this.
If nuclear weapons had not existed, do they
—advocates of a nuclear-free world—
honestly believe that the Cold War would have remained stalemated rather than boiling over into a third global conflict?
Secondly,
If nuclear weapons ceased to exist, what would prevent the first nation to cheat from using secretly manufactured devices before such a temporary monopoly of them was broken?
Thirdly,
Why should a nuclear weapons-free world be achievable when, as President Yeltsin admitted in 1992, the Soviet Union completely flouted the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention by cheating for 20 years, while other countries disarmed?
Fourthly,
How would nuclear-disarmed countries deter attacks from states with other mass destruction weapons, such as biological agents and nerve gases?
Finally, I asked—as I have this afternoon—
Is not the recommendation for a nuclear-free world … a recipe to make the planet safe for full-scale conventional warfare yet again?
I waited eagerly for replies in the columns of The Times, but I waited in vain. I did not, however, wait in vain for any sort of reply, because one came, from Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat. Professor Rotblat and I used to exchange letters in The Times on these very topics throughout the 1980s, and I like to think that, while he won the Nobel peace prize, I won the argument. I did, because the nuclear weapons that he wanted to be disposed of are still there. When Professor Rotblat and I traded arguments in the 1980s, I used to ask him to name a single country that would give up its nuclear weapons as a result of Britain's giving up hers. He was never able to do so.

383
This is all that Professor Rotblat had to say in his reply to my five questions. He said:
The proponents of a nuclear-weapon-free world have long argued that, if some states insist on keeping nuclear arsenals for their security, other states are bound to seek such security for themselves through the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
That is very good as a generalisation, but let him give me an example of a single state that would make the decision according to whether Britain kept her nuclear weapons.
Finally, the professor made an admission that goes to the nub of the issue. He said:
I am not claiming that a nuclear-weapon-free world would be absolutely safe. There is no such thing as absolute safety. But there is no doubt in my mind that, of the two alternatives, a world without nuclear weapons would be safer than a world with them.
Professor Rotblat has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Those are exactly the arguments that were used for unilateral nuclear disarmament back in the 1980s.
I conclude—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I conclude, within the time that I was advised I could take, with a quotation that dates from the earliest days of thinking about nuclear weapons. It comes from another famous winner of the Nobel prize. He did not win the Nobel prize for peace; he won the Nobel prize for science. His name was Professor Sir George Thomson, and he served as the scientific adviser to the Royal Air Force during the second world war.
As early as October 1945, when the Chiefs of Staff were considering the impact of atomic weapons on the future nature of warfare, Professor Thomson wrote a short paper in which he said:
the tendency in the recent past has been to wage war more and more unrestrictedly, and to press it more and more to complete conquest. It is just possible that the atomic bomb may reverse this trend.
He added:
no nation can hope for such a chance unless it has power of retaliation against probable rivals, otherwise it will either have to surrender at discretion or accept destruction without even the satisfaction of damaging its enemy in return.
The truth is that just as the biological weapons convention has been wholly ineffective in removing biological weapons from the world, so a nuclear-free world would simply repeat what happened after disarmament in the 1930s. Disarmament was taken to new heights of complexity, but achieved only this: the peace-loving democracies disarmed each other and themselves, while the rogues, the villains, the bandits, the dictators and the tyrants re-armed in secret, threatened democracy and destroyed the peace of the world.
9.35 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch: It has been said several times that Opposition day debates distinguish the three political parties from each other. The speech of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has certainly distinguished his political party from the others. He might have quoted from those wonderful Tory organs, "What's Left" and "What's Liberal".
Dr. Julian Lewis: I did.
Mr. Keetch: At least your arguments were those of the 20th century, while your colleague, the hon. Member for
384
South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), offered those of the 19th. We intend to use the arguments of the 21st century.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I have not used any arguments at all.
Mr. Keetch: I am sure that you used to, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This has been a good and good-humoured debate, but I wish to clear up some misrepresentations. My hon. Friends and I are not calling for an end to the independence of Her Majesty's armed forces. We do not want a European army. We do not want Britain to be part of some great international police force of intervention. It remains the right of every sovereign nation to defend its people and its territory. That was right for Britain 60 years ago, and it remains right today under some circumstances.
We are justly proud of the action taken at Dunkirk, of which we have heard much this last week. I am particularly proud, because my father was there. We have also recalled this week the events of 6 June 1944, when British and allied troops from across the world, of every colour and creed, began the liberation of Europe on the beaches of Normandy. That international co-operation has continued ever since in many guises—through the United Nations, in NATO and in the Commonwealth. In this century, that co-operation will increasingly be with our partners in Europe.
That does not mean that we wish to decouple from the United States. Nor does it mean that the United States does not wish us to behave in that way—although when the shadow Defence Secretary tries to peddle lies in the United States Senate, people might be forgiven for thinking so. We cannot expect the USA consistently to shoulder the burden of European defence. Co-operation, far from undermining British military capability, can only enhance it.
We are rightly proud of our contribution in Sierra Leone—the excellent work of the Parachute Regiment and 42 Royal Marine—but that action will be worth while only if the United Nations is seen to win in Sierra Leone. What a shallow victory it would be for British diplomacy and our military expedition if action in Sierra Leone were to fail in the months to come because of an inferior UN mission, bereft of British leadership. It is no good going in hard now if we are to throw everything away later.
There has been criticism of the UN's role in Sierra Leone. The UN does not act in isolation and is only as strong as the will of its individual members. If it fails, we, as a permanent member of the Security Council and as the former colonial power in Sierra Leone, must accept our share of the blame. Often in the past the UN has been asked to keep peace where none exists. If nations with the capability to support the UN—financially, logistically or by providing high-quality equipment—choose to turn their backs, UN failure will be their failure. The failure will not lie with those nations which, although they have lesser military and economic capabilities, dedicate their men where others fear to tread.
Britain has never adopted such an isolationist pose. Nor should we do so now. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) talked of national missile defence, questioning the basis on which it is being agreed. We are deeply concerned that if the

385
USA embarks on that path, Russia will spend billions of dollars that it cannot afford, not to build a similar shield but to increase the number of its multiple warheads to try to overwhelm such a shield. That will lead China, then India, then Pakistan, to upgrade in turn. Is that really the kind of world we want in the 21st century?
Britain should use its unique relationship with the United States to warn against such a programme. It is no longer any good for a Secretary of State for Defence from this Government to come to the House and say that he will consider letting the US use RAF Fylingdales only as and when it may or may not ask us. Conservative Members have a position on the matter, as have Liberal Democrats Members. The House should be told the Government's position.
There has been some talk in this debate of overstretch—which is not only a real problem but the main problem facing the strength of our armed forces. All the evidence from the "Continuous Attitude Survey for Service Leavers" shows that the effects of Army service on family life is a key element in our troops leaving. Not recruitment but retention is the main problem. The House can debate our global positions and strategic reach, but if we do not have the trained men and women to do the job, our talk is nothing more than that—just talk.
We have welcomed much of what the Government have done. We welcome the service families taskforce, but—as I think Ministers accept—it needs to go further. Last week, at the annual conference of the Army Families Federation, Liz Sheldon, the organisation's outgoing chair, said of the Government's policy that
the reality is not living up to the vision.
Today, the Government must again undertake to make a reality of that vision.
We heard an excellent opening speech from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who said:
Just because we can't do everything doesn't mean to say we can't do something.
The Minister was absolutely right about that.
The Minister described the chemical weapons convention as a success, and it has been. We are now expecting an inspection regime for the biological weapons regime. Why should not the Government consider proposing such a regime for nuclear weapons? Could not Ministers make that proposal as a positive contribution to the debate on nuclear weapons?
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) spoke about Conservative Members' policy. She also mentioned my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and the fact that we once had a policy of cutting defence spending by 50 per cent. I was very young then. However, we no longer need such a policy, because the Tories have already implemented it for us. Between 1989 and 1997, the then Tory Government cut Britain's defence budget by more than 40 per cent. The current Government have continued those cuts.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked some very important questions about Kosovo, and some very detailed questions about Richard Butler and Iraq. I am glad that I do not have to answer them, because I know that he wants the Minister to do that.
386
I think that the finest speech we heard today was by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who underlined our commitment to the United Nations and to UNESCO. She also underlined our criticism of countries that have not fully funded and met their obligations to those wonderful organisations. She again repeated our criticism of the arms trade.
The United Kingdom is justly proud of the men and women who wear the uniform of our armed forces, who serve in all parts world, under adverse conditions, and sometimes with poor equipment and in areas of great danger. All of us who from time to time support British military actions must bear a responsibility to ensure that they get the best.
We believe that the strategic defence review undertaken by the Government a couple of years ago was a valid attempt to improve our armed forces' capabilities and effectiveness. However, it was a one-off event in time—a snapshot—and has not been a continuous process.
Some people have criticised the SDR for being Treasury-driven. It must be said that Treasury's hand seems still to clamp down on our defence budget. Why were our troops sent to Kosovo with inadequate tents? Why were our troops sent to Sierra Leone with inadequate medical cover? Why did it take the Government so long to order the C17, which is crucial to an expeditionary force, and why so long for Meteor? Why have this Government not ordered a single warship for the Royal Navy?
Why have there been the year-on-year so-called efficiency savings which every fundholder in the forces says are nothing more than cuts? They are a 3 per cent. cut in the defence budget, and the Government should accept that they are.
Now is the time for the Government to look again, to identify our strategic priorities, to state the case on the international issues that Liberal Democrat Members have raised in this debate, and to make Britain the force for good which the Prime Minister describes.
The world has moved on since the SDR and we need to revisit the foreign policy assumptions on which it was based. We need to think again about NATO enlargement and what that means to EU enlargement. Within both of those institutions, we must face up to those nations that do not pull their weight in terms of their defence spending. We need to think of defence less as an industrial job creation policy and an opportunity for arms salesmen, and more as the process of equipping our forces and those of our allies with the tools they need. When we send in our troops to fight, they fight to win—the House must put the men and women who serve us first. I commend the motion to the House.
9.45 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might have felt quite at home in the debate, given that, at some points, it almost turned into a confessional for several hon. Members—but let us draw a veil over that.

387
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) quoted Churchill, which reminded me of one of Churchill's remarks about speeches full of clichés—but, as the remark was somewhat indelicate, we shall have to draw a veil over that, too. The hon. Lady eventually moved on from clichés and addressed the issue of national missile defence, to which we shall return in a moment. However, she did not give way to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), on the crucial issue of precisely what she would sign up to and what she was so urgently urging us to sign up to.
Between generally castigating the rest of the world, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) talked about those who had changed their position. He is a well-known entryist who has certainly changed his party, if not his position, which led me to wonder whether he has now become a reverse entryist to enable him to discredit some of the positions adopted inside the Conservative party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) rightly pointed out the deficiencies of the Liberal Democrats' motion. It is interesting that the excuse they offered was their party's usual inefficiency. To those who know them from either the inside or the outside, that is not surprising. However, I note that the motion does not include the regular calls for additional expenditure issued by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). One wonders whether, in making such calls, he speaks for the whole of his party, or even its Front-Bench team. Perhaps he will clarify that matter on some future occasion. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South about the Budget are welcome, but he will understand that, at this stage in the financial cycle, I cannot comment on them.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), apparently using a JCB, dug ferociously into the archives of history. We shall pass of over his comparison between the two Chamberlains; suffice it to say that, if he represented a west midlands constituency, he would probably be able to distinguish more clearly between them. He raised a serious issue—one that is regularly raised by Conservative Members—which is the notion that a European security and defence identity creates the spectre of detachment between Europe and the United States, and therefore reinforces isolationist tendencies in the USA.
As I have said several times at the Dispatch Box, the reverse is true: in a world wherein US orientation is moving, gently and slowly, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it is only by Europe assuming a greater share of its own defence and making a more significant contribution that we and those in the US who want to maintain transatlantic international links will be able to argue that Europe is bearing its share of the burden. A European defence identity reinforces those long-standing transatlantic links; it does not negate them. The hon. Gentleman quoted Disraeli at some length. I have to say that we rarely see signs of Disraeli's one-nation party being alive and well in the modern Conservative party.
I took somewhat amiss the comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that we intervene only in places where there are oil or diamonds. Neither is present in Kosovo.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I did not say that. If the Minister reads the Official Report, he will see that I said
388
that there was a caricature of our intervening only in connection with oil or diamonds, so we must be given proper explanations of why we intervene and set out in public the criteria by which we judge it necessary to intervene.
Mr. Spellar: We obviously do not do so because, as far as I am aware, there is neither of those things in Kosovo.
As we all know, our people in Kosovo are doing an excellent job, to which the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) rightly drew attention, as he did to our need to back up them and their families. He conceded that we have made considerable progress, particularly through the service families taskforce. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time to reiterate those points.
I am pleased to announce some more improvements and enhancements. We have recently approved a procurement of the necessary infrastructure to give our forces in Kosovo access to the internet so that they may stay in touch with their families. Personnel in our overseas garrisons and many Royal Navy ships' companies already have such access, but we are breaking new ground in providing the facilities in an operational theatre. The equipment will be installed in the next few weeks and will be seen by our troops as a real improvement to their quality of life in theatre.
That announcement is in spite of the schoolboy sniggering on the Opposition Benches on Monday when I referred to e-mail. I do not know whether it was the concept of e-mail that was alien to them, or whether it was a complete misunderstanding of the needs of service families to stay in touch. Either way, it was a bizarre performance and it will certainly have been noted by our service personnel and their families.
Mrs. Gillan: On examination of the record, I believe that the Minister said on the most recent occasion he spoke of the matter from the Dispatch Box:
We have seen the introduction of e-mail—[Official Report, 5 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 10.]
As he has chosen to use his winding-up speech to announce yet again the introduction of e-mail services, will he give us the exact date of their introduction?
Mr. Spellar: Yes. Had the hon. Lady been listening, she would have heard me say that personnel in our overseas garrisons and many Royal Navy ships' companies already have such access, and that those in operational theatre will have it in the next few weeks. We have already placed the orders. That is a considerable enhancement. Yet again, the Tories show that they are completely out of touch with how people live and the improvements that people want.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Spellar: If I may move on.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister says that he is not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Spellar: The Liberal Democrats congratulated our forces in Sierra Leone. In that context, I should point out

389
to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that Commonwealth countries are playing a considerable role in that country. We are engaged with them in that operation and have been of considerable assistance to them. Our forces have been doing what they do best, and doing it professionally and quickly. Criticism of our role is not representative of the views of the United Nations. It sees that our provision considerably enhances its role and is of great assistance. The key element was our ability to make decisions and to move quickly.
We shall enhance that role. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced the leasing of four Boeing C17 aircraft to meet our strategic lift requirements. I am pleased to announce that those aircraft will be based at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. With their capacity to carry a wide range of heavy equipment, including Challenger 2 tanks, Warrior armoured fighting vehicles and even the Army's new Apache attack helicopter, they will revolutionise our capability to deploy forces with real punch to deal with crises anywhere in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) has been pressing me on the issue for some time and will certainly be pleased by the announcement. It is unfortunate that he is not able to be present as he is at the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Mr. Dalyell: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of Kosovo, can he tell me whether we are likely to find out who placed the grenade that caused so much trouble for Brigadier Shirreff and the 7th Army Brigade? I realise that doing so might be difficult.
Mr. Spellar: It is certainly difficult at this stage to do so, but people should not automatically assume one particular source. Obviously, the authorities on the ground are conducting investigations.
I turn in more detail to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, who moved the motion. I was slightly taken aback when he rather dismissed this country as a medium-sized economic power, not a member of the Security Council or a major force for good in the world. I thought that he over-egged the pudding on behalf of his client, the United Nations, and did not reflect its true views.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then came to the serious issue of national missile defence and the anti-ballistic missile treaty and the need for strategic stability. I got the feeling that both his speech and that of the hon. Member for Hereford had been written over the weekend, before events had taken a turn.
Mr. Keetch: No.
Mr. Spellar: In that case, I exonerate the hon. Gentleman of having written the speech before the events, but not of failing to keep up with the news. He obviously had not kept up with the joint statements of the Presidents of the United States of America and the Russian Federation on principles of strategic stability. The press release says:
They agree that the international community faces a dangerous and growing threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, including missiles and missile technologies, and stress their desire to reverse that process, including
390
through existing and possible new international legal mechanisms. They agree that this new threat represents a potentially significant change in the strategic situation and the international security environment.
They agree that this … should be addressed through mutual cooperation and mutual respect of each other's security interests.
President Putin, in his press conference, said:
we respect the opinions of our partners in negotiations, we think that what they say has a certain logic and to a great degree we agree with that logic. There are new threats arising that we must address but our proposal is to answer them together.
Mr. Keetch: Is the Minister saying on behalf of the Government that they believe that the Russian Government are happy with national missile defence?
Mr. Spellar: The statement and the press conference emphasised precisely the point that the Government are making. We are looking forward to discussions taking place between the United States Government and the Government of Russia as the two parties to the ABM treaty, to allow them to deal with issues of threat.
Many of those who castigate national missile defence do not even acknowledge that there is a threat. The Russian Government acknowledge that there is a threat and want to work with the United States Government in order to be able to assess and respond to it. That is exactly in line with our policy. The policy of both opposition parties is deficient in this regard. They are both asking the British Government to make a response and a decision before the position of the key parties in the debate has been resolved.
We have sensibly been saying that we will await the outcome of the talks and the technical tests, and the decision of either the current United States Administration or their successor, and that we will then wait to see what requests they make of us. That is the sensible and balanced response. Neither of the opposition parties is dealing with the matter seriously or taking into account the way in which the debate is evolving. All their speeches pre-dated or ignored the statement.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: What does the Minister say to the observation of his former boss at the Ministry of Defence that NMD had the capacity severely to damage NATO?
Mr. Spellar: That reinforces my point about how the debate has rolled on as a result of changes in Moscow.
In the broader debate, both opposition parties seem united in the belief that independent national identity and collective security are incompatible.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 229.

Division No. 220]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Baker, Norman

Ballard, Jackie

Chidgey, David

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Cotter, Brian

Brake, Tom

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Brand, Dr Peter

Fearn, Ronnie

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Burnett, John

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Burstow, Paul

Gidley, Sandra

391

Harvey, Nick

Rendel, David

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Sanders, Adrian

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

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

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Keetch, Paul

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

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

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Tyler, Paul

Kirkwood, Archy

Webb, Steve

Livsey, Richard

Welsh, Andrew

Llwyd, Elfyn

Willis, Phil

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Oaten, Mark

Mr. Bob Russell and

Öpik, Lembit

Mr. Andrew Stunell.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Donohoe, Brian H

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Doran, Frank

Alexander, Douglas

Dowd, Jim

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Drew, David

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Ashton, Joe

Edwards, Huw

Atherton, Ms Candy

Efford, Clive

Austin, John

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Banks, Tony

Ennis, Jeff

Bayley, Hugh

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Fisher, Mark

Begg, Miss Anne

Flint, Caroline

Beggs, Roy

Flynn, Paul

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Benton, Joe

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Bermingham, Gerald

Fyfe, Maria

Berry, Roger

Gapes, Mike

Betts, Clive

Gardiner, Barry

Blizzard, Bob

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Gerrard, Neil

Borrow, David

Gibson, Dr Ian

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Godsiff, Roger

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Goggins, Paul

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Browne, Desmond

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Gunnell, John

Casale, Roger

Hain, Peter

Cawsey, Ian

Hall, Milk (Weaver Vale)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Chaytor, David

Hanson, David

Clapham, Michael

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Healey, John

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Heppell, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Clwyd, Ann

Hope, Phil

Cohen, Harry

Hopkins, Kelvin

Colman, Tony

Howells, Dr Kim

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cooper, Yvette

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hutton, John

Cranston, Ross

Iddon, Dr Brian

Crausby, David

Illsley, Eric

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Jamieson, David

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jenkins, Brian

Cummings, John

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Dalyell, Tam

Darvill, Keith

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dobbin, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

392

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Primarolo, Dawn

Keeble, Ms Sally

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Quinn, Lawrie

Kemp, Fraser

Rammell, Bill

Khabra, Piara S

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Lepper, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Leslie, Christopher

Rowlands, Ted

Levitt, Tom

Roy, Frank

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Ruane, Chris

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Ruddock, Joan

Linton, Martin

Salter, Martin

McAvoy, Thomas

Sarwar, Mohammad

McCabe, Steve

Savidge, Malcolm

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Singh, Marsha

McDonnell, John

Skinner, Dennis

McFall, John

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McIsaac, Shona

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Soley, Clive

MacShane, Denis

Spellar, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Squire, Ms Rachel

McWalter, Tony

Stevenson, George

Maginnis, Ken

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Mallaber, Judy

Stringer, Graham

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Healey)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Miller, Andrew

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Mitchell, Austin

Timms, Stephen

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Todd, Mark

Moran, Ms Margaret

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Mountford, Kali

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Tynan, Bill

Mullin, Chris

Ward, Ms Claire

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Wareing, Robert N

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Watts, David

Naysmith, Dr Doug

White, Brian

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Wicks, Malcolm

Olner, Bill

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Pickthall, Colin

Winnick, David

Pike, Peter L

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Pollard, Kerry

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Pond, Chris

Wyatt, Derek

Pope, Greg

Pound, Stephen

Tellers for the Noes:

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Mr. Tony McNulty and

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 41.

Division No. 221]

[10.11 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Alexander, Douglas

Austin, John

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Banks, Tony

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Bayley, Hugh

393

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Begg, Miss Anne

Healey, John

Beggs, Roy

Heppell, John

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Hinchliffe, David

Benton, Joe

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Bermingham, Gerald

Hopkins, Kelvin

Berry, Roger

Howells, Dr Kim

Betts, Clive

Hoyle, Lindsay

Blizzard, Bob

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Borrow, David

Hutton, John

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Illsley, Eric

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Jamieson, David

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Jenkins, Brian

Browne, Desmond

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Casale, Roger

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Caton, Martin

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Chaytor, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Clapham, Michael

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Khabra, Piara S

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Clwyd, Ann

Lepper, David

Cohen, Harry

Levitt, Tom

Colman, Tony

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Cooper, Yvette

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Corbett, Robin

Linton, Martin

Corbyn, Jeremy

McAvoy, Thomas

Cranston, Ross

McCabe, Steve

Crausby, David

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Cummings, John

McDonnell, John

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

McFall, John

Dalyell, Tam

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Darvill, Keith

McIsaac, Shona

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Dismore, Andrew

Mackinlay, Andrew

Dobbin, Jim

MacShane, Denis

Donohoe, Brian H

Mactaggart, Fiona

Doran, Frank

McWalter, Tony

Dowd, Jim

Maginnis, Ken

Drew, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Mallaber, Judy

Edwards, Huw

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Efford, Clive

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Fisher, Mark

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Flint, Caroline

Miller, Andrew

Flynn, Paul

Mitchell, Austin

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Gapes, Mike

Gardiner, Barry

Mountford, Kali

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Gerrard, Neil

Mullin, Chris

Gibson, Dr Ian

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Goggins, Paul

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Olner, Bill

Grocott, Bruce

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Gunnell, John

Pike, Peter L

Hain, Peter

Pollard, Kerry

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Pond, Chris

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Pope, Greg

394

Pound, Stephen

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Primarolo, Dawn

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Quinn, Lawrie

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Timms, Stephen

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Todd, Mark

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Rowlands, Ted

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Roy, Frank

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Ruane, Chris

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Ruddock, Joan

Tynan, Bill

Salter, Martin

Ward, Ms Claire

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wareing, Robert N

Savidge, Malcolm

Watts, David

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wicks, Malcolm

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunedale)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Winnick, David

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Soley, Clive

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Spellar, John

Wyatt, Derek

Squire, Ms Rachel

Stevenson, George

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mr. Tony McNulty and

Stringer, Graham

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

NOES

Allan, Richard

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Baker, Norman

Keetch, Paul

Ballard, Jackie

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

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Kirkwood, Archy

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Livsey, Richard

Brake Tom

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Brand, Dr Peter

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Oaten, Mark

Burnett, John

Öpik, Lembit

Burstow, Paul

Rendel, David

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

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

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Chidgey, David

Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)

Cotter, Brian

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Tyler, Paul

Fearn, Ronnie

Webb, Steve

Foster, Don (Bath)

welsh, Andrew

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Willis, Phil

Gidley, Sandra

Harvey, Nick

Tellers for the Noes:

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Mr. Andrew Stunell and

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Mr. Bob Russell.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that the strategic interests of the United Kingdom are normally best served through collective action through the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Security and Defence Identity, and similar political, economic and military institutions and initiatives, and with allies, but that the United Kingdom should reserve the right to act independently where absolutely necessary; notes that the United States has not yet taken a decision to deploy a National Missile Defence, and that Her Majesty's Government has made clear, both to the US and to Russia, that it wishes to see the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and strategic stability, preserved; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to pursue its pledge to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons through bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including through the Non-Proliferation Treaty machinery; and recalls that a principal aim of the deployment of British forces to Sierra Leone was to allow the

395
deployment of additional UN forces, which is now well under way, and to support the UN effort there, and as such has been welcomed by the UN Secretary General.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the Annunciator, we have just passed the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) by 209 votes to 41. I think that there may be some mistake.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. According to the Deputy Speaker, we have passed the Prime Minister's amendment.

Civil Protection (Isle of Wight)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
10.22 pm
Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight): It seems appropriate to move from military defence to civil defence or, as the title of the debate terms it, civil protection. I know that that is a somewhat outmoded phrase for what is now known as emergency planning, but I wonder whether some policy makers in the Home Office have not moved on from the days of tin hats and sirens, or the even more ridiculous days when public protection was all about advising people to put a white sheet over the kitchen table and to hide under it in the event of a nuclear attack. In those days civil defence had a poor image, certainly among people who thought about the consequences of nuclear war. However, we are now talking about emergency planning, which is completely different.
I am grateful for this debate because the Isle of Wight has been uniquely disadvantaged by administrative events. Before 1995, the Isle of Wight was a county authority and the existing regulations meant that it had to have two minor authorities, so it was a county with two boroughs. That meant that the island attracted Home Office grants for emergency planning for two boroughs and a county. After reorganisation, it was recognised that we had particular difficulties because we were a county unitary authority. We retained a degree of Home Office comfort and our funding for emergency planning dropped only from £168,000 to £90,000 a year. Unfortunately, that comfort is being eroded. It was £63,000 for the year 2000–01 and is due to drop even further to some £53,000, or even, at the worst, £35,000 thereafter. If the Government drop the level beyond a point where we can employ a proper department, it is difficult to meet Home Office guidance for the service for which the grant is supposed.
One reason why the Isle of Wight is unique is not the nostalgia of having been a county for so long and now being a unitary authority, but because we must be self-sufficient in many respects. We are cut off from the mainland by the sea. Our nearest neighbours in Hampshire take some two hours to get to the island to offer any meaningful support. We have had incidents where the fire service has been so stretched that we have had to ask for support from the mainland, but instead of popping across a local authority boundary, those from the mainland must find a ferry, commandeer space on the ferry and come across. That makes a significant difference.
There is an added complication. Anyone involved with planning—which is, after all, about bringing emergency services together—must spend time talking to surrounding authorities that may have common interests. Again, it takes an incredible amount of officer time just to travel from one place to another.
We have made that case on a number of occasions. In October 1998, I led a deputation to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) when he was at the Home Office. I have written in the past to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who I am delighted to see is here to respond to the debate. Other than gaining an interim bit of support, we have not been successful.

397
I should like to point out what accepting the full cuts that the Home Office proposes for the service on the island would mean. It would be possible to continue the maintenance of an annual plan, but that would probably be the maximum that could be provided, because there is all the co-operative work on the more detailed matters such as port safety. We have an oil refinery to the north of us, and Cap de la Hague lighthouse is to the south of us. Those are potentially difficult problems.
The other day, I was at a conference at the Southampton oceanography institute where I was introduced as "The Member for the Isle of Wight, that useful breakwater at the other end of the Solent". That was fairly disparaging of my constituency, but the speaker made a valuable point in that we are a traffic island in the middle of an extremely busy bit of sea.
Minor mishaps are not unusual, and we have had some major mishaps involving shipping. We have had boats crashing into each other, crashing into light towers and being cut open and discharging oil. Major disasters have been narrowly averted, but incidents have needed the activation of the major incident plan. To anticipate what the Minister might say, can we not co-ordinate all that regionally? We cannot.
There is a need for local knowledge in dealing with many of those issues. We have some superb voluntary services working closely with our expert fire and rescue service. The health authority clearly needs input from emergency planners for its major disaster plan. It would be difficult to serve not only a population of 125,000, but the extra people who may come on shore quite quickly should there be a repeat, for example, of the Canberra near disaster a few years ago, when many passengers had to be evacuated in a hurry.
Over the past 10 years, there have been some serious events. After the big storms in 1986 and 1987, all the emergency services, the voluntary services and anyone who could be found worked flat out. They were co-ordinated according to a well-honed plan, and all the statutory and voluntary organisations knew their place in the scheme of things.
In 1994 there was a serious event involving the Canberra, which luckily turned out to be all right, but there was a major evacuation. In 1995 one of the holiday camps caught fire and a major evacuation was required. Again, support brought in from the mainland had to be co-ordinated. A number of oil spillages and unknown chemicals on beaches all needed the input of people able to co-ordinate the efforts of the statutory services.
The most recent significant incident occurred in December when there was widespread flooding all over the island, causing hundreds of people to evacuate their homes. There must be a system in place to get in the right people from social services and to mobilise the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. Such a system needs to be provided by people who are local.
If the council had accepted the Home Office cut in funding, there would not be a duty officer on call 24 hours a day. With a fund of no more than £50,000, three people cannot be employed to make sure that there is always somebody on the island who is wakeable, fit and on duty. The council considered the cuts unacceptable and is at
398
present supporting the service out of its general Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions revenue.
That is what councils get Government grant for, but we seem to be particularly unlucky with the Home Office. which sets standards for departments such as our fire and rescue service without funding what it expects us to deliver. The fire and rescue service is regularly inspected by the Home Office inspectorate. It gets glowing reports for its efficiency, and we are told that we cannot do with less than we currently have, yet the island general grant must subsidise our fire service by some 59 per cent.
It is extraordinarily difficult to keep cutting services that must be paid for out of the ordinary council income to support Home Office projects. I know that the sum in question is very small, but it is symbolic. Every Government Department makes requirements of the people living in my constituency and the local authority that looks after their welfare, without recognising the island factor.
A number of reputable accountants and consultancy companies have e examined the cost of maintaining services across a stretch of water. Even a few years ago, that was reckoned to be at least £6 per head of the population. That leaves a significant shortfall for a council that tries to provide services at least equal to those provided in the rest of England.
During the Scottish devolution debate, I almost intervened to suggest that should the Scots need a naval base on the south coast, I should be happy to offer my constituency, because the Scotland Office understands the extra costs and extra risks involved in living on an island. I am afraid that our political masters in this place and the civil servants in Whitehall think that the Isle of Wight is so far away that they do not have to worry about it, or they cannot see the little bit of blue on the map that makes us unique. I look forward to the Minister's explanation of how the Department has monitored our progress. Last year, he promised that the Government would monitor the island's emergency planning needs. I am ever hopeful that they will acknowledge that they must do something about it.
10.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I reassure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) that I know where the Isle of Wight is. I have enjoyed its hospitality on several occasions. I was in Shanklin a few weeks ago, enjoying the weather and the fine opportunities for a holiday that exist in Britain on the Isle of Wight.
I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Isle of Wight emergency planning services. They have done a good job on several occasions. It is the council's role, primarily through its Government grant, but also through its council tax income, to fund those services. I hope that the council continues to do that.
The Home Office provided a civil defence grant of £14 million this financial year. The payment contributes towards the cost of specific civil defence duties, which are defined in statute as countering the effects of a hostile attack by a foreign power. It is not, and never has been, intended to meet the full cost of ordinary emergency planning services.

399
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the role of civil defence has changed in the past couple of decades. The Home Office is not supposed to fund all civil defence planning through the grant. It does not claim to do that because it is primarily the council's responsibility.
The restructuring of local authorities between 1995 and 1998 necessitated changes to the way in which the Home Office contributes to the civil defence function in local government. I am sorry to say that I cannot offer much comfort to the hon. Gentleman because the legislation essentially refers to war planning. It is therefore unlikely that overall funding will increase.
Changes in local government structure clearly had an impact on the Isle of Wight. As a result of the changes in local government, there were more eligible candidates for the grant, and we reassessed our allocation system. Change is always difficult, and the Isle of Wight is especially unhappy about the new method of funding. That is why I am grateful for the opportunity to explain to the House the rationale for some of the adjustments. I am also grateful for the chance to affirm how civil protection in England and Wales generally is enhanced by the new financial arrangements.
The previous system of grant distribution was based on a formula which was agreed with the local government associations in 1992. It was largely based on a two-tier system of local governance, which differentiated between county councils and smaller authorities such as district councils. The reorganisation of local government created several new all-purpose unitary authorities; each has a responsibility for civil defence and, consequently, access to a civil defence grant.
The reorganisation created numerous anomalies in the funding arrangements. They could he properly addressed only by introducing a new mechanism. The Home Office consulted with the Local Government Association and a new three-tier grant distribution was announced on 26 May 1999. The mechanism is based on the following rationale: all authorities with civil defence responsibilities will receive a basic allocation of £45,000 to ensure minimum, basic preparedness. County councils will receive an allocation of £10,000 for each district council in the county boundary to recognise the help that a county must provide to constituent districts.
Remaining grant after the first two elements have been addressed is allocated according to criteria adopted under the Bellwin scheme, which is operated by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It sets a level of expenditure above which central Government may contribute to costs incurred by local authorities in responding to major incidents.
Dr. Brand: I appreciate the Minister setting out exactly how the new arrangements were arrived at, but he has just described the difficulty that has been created for the Isle of Wight, which had one county and two districts and would therefore have qualified for some £65,000 under the new arrangements. How can he claim that civil defence has been enhanced by a cut in funding? The island is unique. Powys is similar as it has a unitary county authority, although it is not cut off by the sea. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Isle of Wight
400
should be one of the unitary authorities for which Winchester receives an extra grant? That is not our understanding.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue his intervention.
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about the Isle of Wight's status, with which I am familiar, in a moment. No doubt particular problems are associated with island status, but my experience is that no matter which council comes forward, it will identify the local difficulties that it has to face, which it says are unique, in the hope that the Government will identify the area as worthy of special treatment.
Let me continue the point about the Bellwin scheme. The use of that scheme acknowledges some relationship between population size and the work load of emergency planning teams in large areas. The new mechanism provides funds to all eligible councils. To ensure protection for areas in which grant is reducing, the impact of the new mechanism is being phased in during the current financial year.
Under the previous grant distribution system, each county council was entitled to £140,000 in its own right with a supplement of £14,000 for each district in the county area. That gave the Isle of Wight £168,000 in 1993–94, which was reduced to £153,216 by 1998–99. It was agreed with the local government associations that grant would be ring-fenced by county area as an interim measure until the new grant distribution mechanism was in place. When the Isle of Wight became an all-purpose authority after the merging of the county and two district authorities, it received far in excess of the £35,000 provided to similar authorities. The Home Office acknowledged that that anomaly should be addressed in the new grant distribution mechanism.
On 3 August 1998, the then head of the Home Office emergency planning division wrote to the Isle of Wight to say that we intended to reduce its grant for 1999–2000 to £70,000 in a move towards equalising the grant available to each all-purpose authority. Following representations from the Isle of Wight about that reduction, a Home Office emergency planning unit official visited the island on the 11 November 1998 to discuss how the reductions would be made with minimum effect on emergency planning arrangements. Subsequently, to acknowledge that the reductions would significantly affect the emergency planning funding arrangements for the island and to assist it in managing the inevitable further reductions—it was made clear that those reductions were inevitable—it was agreed that the allocation for 1999–2000 should be £90,000, not £70,000.
On 26 May 1999, the Isle of Wight was advised that, as a result of the new grant mechanism, its allocation would be £63,000 for 2000–01 and £53,546 for 2001–02. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we have to consider other areas with different problems. For example, in the context that I have described, it might be argued that the allocation of £168,000 to the Isle of Wight up to 1996–97 was excessive. Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield each received only £35,000. Obviously, all those authorities would say that they had particular problems in terms of emergency planning, given the size of their areas.

401
The local authority in the Isle of Wight argued that it should be given special consideration, for two reasons. First, it said that the status of the island was misunderstood. It maintained that, while the council was a unitary authority, it was also a unitary, or all-purpose, council. In its view, that means that, while other unitary authorities are located within areas that offer them strategic support from county councils or fire and civil defence authorities, the Isle of Wight has inherited both the strategic functions of the county council and the functions of the former borough councils. I do not accept that argument. Many other unitary authorities are in a similar position, with no county council or fire and civil defence authority.
Dr. Brand: It would be extremely helpful if the Minister would write to me listing the authorities that he has just described.
Mr. O'Brien: I will do that with pleasure.
The position of the Isle of Wight will have no effect on the level of its grant under the new arrangements. In 2001–02 it will receive, as a unitary authority, £45,000 as a basic allocation, plus a Bellwin element of £8,546. If it were treated as a county, its allocation would be identical, because it no longer has any constituent districts.
Secondly, the Isle of Wight has argued that its circumstances are special because it is an island. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman advanced that argument. However, the Home Office does not believe that the Isle of Wight is unique in its responsibility for civil defence, or that it should be allocated significantly more grant than other authorities with broadly similar responsibilities.
When my predecessor with responsibility for emergency planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), met a delegation from the Isle of Wight on 26 July 1999, those points were made. A paper was submitted by the hon. Gentleman, presenting the island's view that it was in a unique position and had been disadvantaged by the new grant distribution formula.
As I have said, I hafe found that almost all councils can come up with some unique element. I well remember, on occasion, arguing the case for unique elements in my county council.
Dr. Brand: When the Minister lists unitary authorities that are similar to Isle of Wight, will he list other English constituencies that are surrounded by water?
Mr. O'Brien: I think the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that I would have some difficulty in doing that. I also think he must take my point that being surrounded by water is not the only basis on which an authority can claim to be unique. There are all sorts of bases on which authorities have been known to claim a level of
402
uniqueness—for instance, their population, income distribution, demography and communications. While I think it fair to say that there is a uniqueness in the fact that the Isle of Wight is surrounded by water, I am afraid that that uniqueness does not distinguish it sufficiently from other councils that may also claim to be unique.
Dr. Brand: Does the Minister acknowledge that being surrounded by water is just about the only criterion that does not appear in any of the grant allocation formulae?
Mr. O'Brien: I shall have to look at that and write to the hon. Gentleman. He may well he right: it may well not be one of the criteria in the grant allocation formulae. At the same time, other councils do claim particular problems, not perhaps unique, but sufficiently uncommon in relation to communications, demography, the ability to plan or the nature of establishments—nuclear and other—in their areas that unusual emergency planning is required.
Whether risks and hazards should form part of the distribution mechanism has been explored in depth many times. I am of the view that any attempt to set one type of risk against another would be controversial, with little prospect of successfully agreed outcomes among local authorities. Any ensuing mechanism would be unduly complicated and costly to administer, given the funding involved. As I said in opening, the grant is only a contribution towards civil defence expenditure.
The Government allocate funds largely by negotiation with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman may argue that our allocation should be greater, and we could debate the extent to which the taxpayer should fund different areas. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will tell me that we could use an extra penny on taxation—
Dr. Brand: Not on this one.
Mr. O'Brien: I accept that.
When the Government are asked to treat an area uniquely, the decision lies not only with the Home Office or the Government. In practice, we discuss these matters and negotiate with the local authority organisations. There is some compromise and agreement over allocation of the formula.
Dr. Brand: Having conceded that being surrounded by water is a unique factor, does the Minister recognise that it is unlikely that the Isle of Wight will ever receive support from local authority associations on having that feature introduced as a unique factor?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman may be right. Many other authorities—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

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

Sri Lanka
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]
9.30 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am very glad to have the opportunity of a debate on the civil war in Sri Lanka, although I am sad that we need to have such a debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his attendance. Coincidentally, he and I were last together at the lunch given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the high commissioner of Sri Lanka before his departure, so we were able to speak together to people with an interest just a few days ago.
I should like to declare my interest. It starts with nostalgia: when I was a little boy, the story that I was told very often was how my mother gave up the chance of an appointment to be on the British forces staff in Kandy to marry my dad. I think that the ultimatum my dad gave her was "there or me". My mother always said that she regretted, at least up to 49 per cent., making the choice to marry my dad and not go to what was then Ceylon. But from then on, my family always had an interest and an aspiration to go there.
Sri Lanka became independent just over 50 years ago and was recognised as one of the world's beautiful and historic countries. We in Britain increasingly felt that we had strong links with Sri Lanka. I retained my nostalgic interest until I moved to London and gradually met more and more people from all the different communities in Sri Lanka. I got to know their character and their contribution here, as well as the deep sense of despair and desperation of many about what was going on at home. That led, over the following years, since I have been in the House, to an increasing interest and a desire to do something to help the process of peacemaking in Sri Lanka.
At the beginning of last year, I went to Sri Lanka for the first time. I arrived on new year's day with Simon Hunt, who works with me here, and with a Sri Lankan Sinhala party colleague of ours, Dai Liyanage, who has recently finished his year as mayor of Medway. The visit was also made with the encouragement of the Tamil community in this country, whose headquarters in London had moved into my constituency. I have been often to Eelam house and talked to people there.
So I come to this debate with historical interest, the experience of having been to Sri Lanka and increasing concern that the country, which has huge opportunity and possibility, is frustrated at nearly every turn by the civil war which has effectively been going on, unbroken, since 1983. That in many ways handicaps a country that would naturally be so outgoing, effervescent, fun-loving and enriching—and I am not just talking about the cricket. I should add that I have enjoyed nearly all the recent Sri Lankan contributions to cricket, although the
46WH
last match that I witnessed, not very far from here, was not a great English success. [Interruption.] The Minister, with at least two partisan interests, no doubt has to split his allegiance somewhat.
The point about cricket may be superficial, but it is representative. The country wants to contribute internationally in all sorts of ways, but often it cannot do so to the full.
At International Development questions the other day, I asked the Secretary of State what her Department's priorities in Sri Lanka were for this financial year. Her answer was this:
Finding a lasting solution to the long-running conflict is the major priority in reducing poverty in Sri Lanka.—[Official Report, 3 May 2000; Vol.349, c.130.]
She sent me the country strategy paper produced by the Department for International Development at the end of last year. This well-written document makes it clear that although poverty exists, there is little "extreme" poverty. It says that groups of extreme poor exist in the conflict zones, but that resolution of the war is the first priority in reducing poverty, and that for future stability, the fundamental causes of chronic conflict in Sri Lanka also need to be addressed. The country, with its huge potential for economic development, is perpetually thwarted by the endemic conflict within its borders.
I should like to give some statistics. The population of Sri Lanka is between 18 million and 19 million people. About three quarters are Sinhala and about 18 per cent. are Tamil. Some 7 per cent. of the population are Muslims, of Moorish extraction, and there are small Burgher, Malay and Veddas communities. The Sinhala community is effectively Buddhist—about 70 per cent. of the population are Buddhist. That is very important—Buddhism is written into the constitution, as pre-eminently important, which I respect. I had helpful and constructive discussions with some Buddhist religious leaders when I was there.
The Tamil community is effectively Hindu—15 per cent. of the population is Hindu. Then, 8 per cent. is Christian, and there is a Muslim population of 8 per cent., too. Sinhala is the predominant language, and Tamil the minority language. Interestingly, the language that is the great link between both communities is English. I was told very clearly by everyone that the development of English in Sri Lanka is a unifying feature and is not perceived as a colonial or ex-colonial contribution at all.
When I was there, I confirmed how much the politics of Sri Lanka is dynastic. Some families have been in power for generations—the current President's mother is still the Prime Minister, for example. That means that there is a determination for the Sinhala to defend the unity of the country, because it is the centre of their world tradition. There is also a desire for independence among many of the Tamils. That is not the universal Tamil view, but there is a huge desire for self-determination, and that will not go away.
As in all other places, we cannot pretend that there are not different communities with their own aspirations which will want to reassert their differences until self-determination is achieved. As a result, there has been, effectively, a continuing attempt by each community to assert its predominance. There is a form of

47WH
proportionality in the election system, but the Government have a pro-Sri Lanka majority and want to preserve the unity of Sri Lanka. They have used the armed forces, in no uncertain terms, to do that.
The Tamil community, some of them through the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, has grown and, at different dates, has been more or less effective in occupying territory and resisting Government intervention. In effect, it controls much of the northern part of Sri Lanka, especially the Jaffna peninsula—the area in which the Tamils are most concentrated.
The result of that conflict is that both sides are so committed to their own resolution that it is clear that neither will win the conflict outright. The Government will not manage to suppress or eradicate the Tamil freedom fighters—they will not go away. Likewise, the Tamil Eelam Liberation Tigers are unlikely to able to take over and hold, without contradiction or challenge, the Tamil Eelam territory in the north and the east that they espouse. There has to be a way to mediate and accommodate them.
Sri Lankan politicians say that they want to try to achieve peace through their words, but often they act and speak in ways that undermine that exercise. However, I do not seek to cast aspersions on the good faith of politicians. I understand the huge historical baggage that exists and the huge pressure from the communities that people represent. I realise how difficult it must be for the President, for her mother, the former Prime Minister, as for previous Presidents, to deliver a peaceful solution.
My first proposition to the Chamber—especially to the Government—is that we must do more to bring about discussion, negotiation and resolution of this conflict which has taken probably 60,000 lives. For reasons that I shall give, it is almost a forgotten civil war. However, it is a devastating, painful and absolutely awful conflict, with the most horrible casualties. It is the responsibility not only of Sri Lanka, but of the Commonwealth and the international community.
Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) reminded me that Kofi Annan had said that we must now be more concerned with the sovereignty of the individual in the world than with the sovereignty of the state. We must say to the Sri Lankan Government clearly, but in friendship and support, that the resolution of this conflict is not only for them; the rest of us have a duty and an interest, and should be involved.
That is true not least because many people in the United Kingdom were born in Sri Lanka and have links with that country. According to the last census, about 40,000 permanent residents of the UK were born in Sri Lanka. That number is growing. Furthermore, many people from Sri Lanka seek asylum in this country and many are accepted—although I shall raise a point on that matter later in my speech. My London colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who are in the Chamber, have many Sri Lankans in their constituencies—as do I. Colleagues elsewhere in London and beyond regularly have dealings with Sri Lankan members of our community—both
48WH
Tamil and Sinhalese. They contribute hugely in Britain—in business, medicine, the caring services, local authorities and so on. I pay tribute to that enormous contribution; we value it greatly.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillian: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument that the international community should have an even greater involvement in the internal problems of Sri Lanka. What is his view of the recent calls from the European Parliament for the matter to be brought before the UN Security Council? Is that a helpful intervention? Will it make any contribution to the peace process?
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her interest. I have a specific proposal to make on that point, but I also note that colleagues in the House are increasingly lending support to a proposal made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that a UN peacekeeping force should be sent to Sri Lanka. It is not only the European Parliament, but colleagues in this House, across the party divides, who are asking for something to be done.
The direct answer to the hon. Lady's question is that I welcome the proposal that the UN should take a greater interest. I think that the UN would be ready to do so, were it not for the fact that the Sri Lankan Government have always made it clear that they would not welcome external intervention. That is why I make an alternative proposition.
When my colleagues and I visited Sri Lanka, we were determined to explore the ways in which a peace process could be developed. Before I left, I talked to people who might be players—with the knowledge of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Sri Lankan high commission and the Tamil community in London. Following those discussions, the Norwegians have offered—and been accepted—to lead the facilitation process. They see their role as being at the disposal of the Government and all other parties. They will talk to all parties, but they do not see themselves as the people who will come up with proposals and solutions. I understand that.
Given this position, will the Minister consider what initiatives it might be appropriate for him to take? Would he consider holding consultations with the Norwegian embassy? Could the Commonwealth meet—in some appropriate form—to decide whether to make representations to Sri Lanka? For evident reasons, it may be that the Commonwealth, rather than the UN, is the best mediating body.
There are some additional reasons for that. India has a direct interest—as it always has had—although it is unlikely to want to make another military intervention because of its previous experience. Australia, New Zealand and the south Asian Commonwealth countries have commercial and other interests. Many Sri Lankans work and travel in Australia. There are many good reasons for Commonwealth interest. The highest proportion of Sri Lankans abroad live in Commonwealth countries—not only in the UK, but in Canada, for example.
Will the Government think positively, within the context of the Commonwealth, about supporting the Norwegian initiative and about putting that matter

49WH
higher on the agenda? Before the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and I were discussing the fact that we need to move from what seems to be almost a passive position to one that is more proactive. After nearly 20 years of civil war—there is no point in beating about the bush, it is a civil war—we can no longer say that the matter is one on which only the Sri Lankan Government can set the ground rules.
My assistant, Simon Hunt, Councillor Liyanage and I met various people in Sri Lanka. The enormity of the conflict was brought home further to us when, after our return, we learned that two of those people whom we met were later assassinated. One was killed in the very car in which we had travelled with him a few months before. Those people—from different perspectives—were trying to do something to bring about the peace process.
In Sri Lanka, people live in perpetual fear of assassination if they are involved in the political process. It is not only in the north, the Vanni or the Jaffna peninsula that those matters impose In Colombo, the police and armed forces are everywhere. In effect, the city and the country are under a martial law regime, because the Government consider that that is necessary. When an assassination attempt was made on the President just before the election, thousands of people were rounded up and arrested. Thousands of people are held in detention. That is the sort of place it is at present.
I also want to put to the Minister a proposal about humanitarian issues which lies in the area of responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and others. The areas of conflict in Sri Lanka are almost unique in that they do not benefit from the humanitarian support that other places would receive in similar circumstances. The north of Sri Lanka is effectively a no-go area. The Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontieres and other agencies have, I understand, almost no presence there because the Government of Sri Lanka will not allow many of them in. They will not allow people in because they regard their presence as likely to prevent continuing military action. We cannot tolerate a position in which relief agencies are unable to go in, evaluate what is needed and take action.
I qualify my remarks because information is difficult to come by, but disease is apparently rife, many injured people are apparently not being treated and supplies, such as penicillin, that would normally be allowed in are sometimes not allowed in because it is felt that they might assist the Tamil freedom fighters. That is not acceptable. It is also not acceptable that the civilians who are not involved in the conflict are not allowed to leave. They are effectively being held as prisoners of the civil war. I want us to consider how better the international community can ensure that the humanitarian aid and support that is seeded reaches the areas of Sri Lanka in which there is conflict.
Mr. Edward Davey: Is my hon. Friend aware that food aid was used as a weapon of war against refugees in the Vanni? Will he tell us how
50WH
he thinks the British Government could put pressure on the Government in Colombo to ensure that such action never happens again?
Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend makes another point in the litany of points about what is being used as a method of war. It must be possible for the international community to exert pressure. I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues will be sympathetic to the idea of negotiating so that we can ensure that food, water and drugs, for example to prevent malaria, get to where they are needed. When people need hospital treatment that cannot be provided, they should be taken out of the region. I shall not go through the litany of the United Nations obligations, but I know that many of them seem to be broken or are not being upheld.
I gather—again I cannot say it categorically—that the number of people in Sri Lanka who have disappeared and cannot be traced is the second highest in the world. According to human rights agencies, it is second only to Iraq.
A linked issue is that the press has been censored in a way that has not happened in Sierra Leone or Kosovo to the same extent. There has been a much more effective ban that has prevented information from coming out.
In that context, will the Minister answer a further point? Licences have been granted to arms exports to Sri Lanka. The normal rule is that such arms must not be used for the purposes of internal repression. How do we know that they are not being used for repression if no one can get into the areas of conflict to see what is happening? We cannot be certain that they are not being used for that purpose. I am not criticising the Government precisely or saying that I know for certain that the arms are being used for repression, but information from around the world and not just from Tamil sources confirms that foreign arms are being supplied. For example, it is not coincidental that Sri Lanka has recently restored diplomatic relations with Israel. Will the Minister give us a specific statement on past, present or future supplies of military equipment and hardware? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that no abuse of that equipment takes place?
Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the exchange that he had with the Secretary of State for International Development. He said that he was pleased with her response and with the position paper that was sent to him. He raised with the right hon. Lady the question of arms sales to Sri Lanka and she said that she would write to him. Has he received a reply and will he tell us what she said on the subject?
Mr. Hughes: I do not think that I have yet received the reply, but I will copy it to colleagues when I do. I am a bit circumspect because the reply may have arrived, but I have not seen it. However, I raised the matter some time ago, so I will check to see whether any reply has been received and pursue the matter with the Department. It is important that we are not wittingly or unwittingly involved in anything that adds to what is already a desperate situation, where there are mass graves, many people are unable to leave and human shields have been used.
I appreciate that my next point relates to a matter that the Minister should pass on to his colleagues in other Departments. One of the consequences of the civil war

51WH
is the number of people who have left Sri Lanka to come to this country to seek asylum. Because of the work, in particular, of Tony Paterson, who is a specialist in immigration cases, I want to express concern about the way in which this country has handled those cases.
According to last year's Home Office statistical bulletin, the Home Office granted asylum to 3 per cent. of Sri Lankan asylum seekers on initial consideration and 1 per cent. more were granted exceptional leave to remain. The applications of the other 96 per cent. were refused outright. However, after hearings by the adjudicators, 48 per cent. of those who appealed had their appeals allowed. Therefore, once the adjudicators considered the cases, nearly half of the applicants were allowed into this country when only 4 per cent. were allowed in initially. Those, I believe, are the worst figures for the ratio between the initial decision and appeal for the applicants from any country in the world. Someone must examine what is happening.
I believe that the people who take the decisions do not properly use the information available to the country assessment civil servants. There is no joined-up government between the caseworkers and the information. There is a further serious point. People receive a standard reply when their application is turned down. It says:
Regarding any ill-treatment which you may have sustained whilst in detention, the Secretary of State is aware of reports of continuing abuses of human rights by members of the Security Forces in Sri Lanka and concerns about the impunity of those responsible. However, he understands that the government of Sri Lanka, and in particular, the President herself, are firmly resolved to improve the country's human rights record … human rights training programmes for the Security Forces have been set up … the Government has undertaken to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations … the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Government has taken genuine steps to address this issue.
Our officials appear regularly to conclude that it is safe for someone from Jaffna to return to Sri Lanka, because he can live in Colombo. I have been to Colombo and life is not safe or secure there. Is it acceptable to say to a Sri Lankan from Jaffna that it is fine to return because he or she can live in Kandy? As I suggested to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife, that is like telling him that his asylum application has been dealt with and, even though we know that he cannot return to North-East Fife, the Scilly islands are a nice place to live, and he could go there. It is not acceptable to tell people to go to the other end of a country where they have no family or roots and where they are not part of the community. Will the Minister ask the Home Office to undertake an inquiry into the processing of the asylum applications of people from Sri Lanka and to make sure that those who consider the cases do not give the fatuous and unacceptable reply that it is safe for them to return to a place that is less risky than the one from which they came or to one where, in theory, the Government are in control?
Other colleagues want to contribute. We do not have enough debates about Sri Lanka, which is a friend and Commonwealth country, so I am glad to be having this one. The Sri Lankan Government must sometimes think that those of us who get exercised about such issues are all allied to the Tamil cause, but I hold no exclusive brief
52WH
for either community. However, I am sympathetic to the idea that there must be a better process for self-determination and that there must be a solution that gives the much greater autonomy and self-government sought by the Tamil people. The Government in Sri Lanka have not delivered that for 50 years.
We cannot stand aside and watch as tens of thousands more people are killed and injured. We have a responsibility to Sri Lankan residents in this country but, more importantly, we have a responsibility to a poor country which is in need of international community support and which should not have a terrible drain on its own resources. I hope that there can be an initiative that urgently will bring the parties to the table. There are difficulties every time elections loom—indeed, a parliamentary election looms later this year and political tensions mount. However, I hope that another peacemaking initiative can be made as soon as is humanly possible and that all parties in Sri Lanka understand that that is not just their responsibility. The rest of us have a responsibility, and the Sri Lankans are responsible to the rest of us for ensuring that peace, not more years of conflict, is brought to that beautiful country.
10.2 am
Mr. Edward Davey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for securing this debate and for his tireless work in trying to bring about peace in Sri Lanka. He undertook such work during his recent visit, as well as before and since. I also pay tribute to the remarkably balanced and fair way in which he presented his case.
I shall try to follow my hon. Friend's example. I have an interest in the issue following a visit by some of my constituents to one of my advice sessions. To my discredit, I knew little of what was going on in Sri Lanka before their visit. They told me about the tragedy taking place in that lovely island and talked me through the experiences of their families. One family in my constituency has lost loved ones in Sri Lanka: some have disappeared and some have been murdered.
That is the background to my interest in the issue, which also informs my approach to it. I therefore apologise if my argument is slightly less balanced than that of my hon. Friend. However, I agree with many of his points, especially his plea to the Government to take a more active role in the peace process. He is right to suggest that the Norwegian initiative is the way forward. It has the greatest chance of success and I believe that the Government support it. Will the Minister tell us how the Government intend to give that initiative active backing?
My hon. Friend said that the election in August may create difficulties. However, it also creates opportunities, as outside sources could give parties contesting the election an indication that a commitment to the peace process would be in their interest. The previous Government did a good job in ensuring that all parties contesting elections signed up to a peace process. The constitutional package put forward by the Kumaratunga Government in the approach to the August elections may not be liked by some in the Jaffna peninsula, but they are trying to get wider support for it,

53WH
especially from the United National Party, which is the main opposition party. I hope that, in becoming more active in the peace process, our Government will push that further and suggest that more parties should try to commit themselves to that package prior to the election. That may be difficult, as nothing is easy in any peace process. However, such measures could underpin the Sri Lankan peace process, although I accept that the Government may have others in mind.
My hon. Friend referred to export licences for arms, which is an area in which the Government need to be rather less active. It is unfortunate that some export licences have been granted since the election. Will the Minister assure us that his Government will grant no more arms export licences? Indeed, I hope that he will go further than that. My hon. Friend spoke about the recent amazing thaw in relations between the Colombo Government and Israel, and explained how that is tied up with the purchase of jet aircraft and other arms supplies. The defence budget in Sri Lanka is now projected to rise to 6 per cent. of gross domestic product, which dwarves the amount spent on health and education. That extra money will go towards buying jets from Israel. Has the Minister—or his colleagues—had discussions with representatives of the Israeli Government or, indeed, of the American Government to prevent such escalation? A large, expensive introduction of new arms cannot be in the interests of peace.
My hon. Friend spoke about the press and raised the media embargoes sometimes imposed by the Colombo Government. We are told that those embargoes have been lifted recently: we shall wait and see. I wish to encourage the Colombo Government to remove them permanently and ensure that the international community can report events there fully so that we can monitor on the ground whether the Sri Lankan Government are meeting their United Nations and international obligations on aid, medical supplies and so on.
We cannot lay the lack of coverage of the dispute only at the door of the Colombo Government. The wider media are to blame, as they have stepped back from reporting it and have not tried hard enough to get to the truth. Of course, there are difficulties, but, in other international conflicts, certain broadcasting stations, channels and other media outlets have tried hard to get to the truth. However, they are not so willing to do so in this area. It is incumbent on all media outlets, such as the BBC, CNN and others, to ensure that the terrible tragedy of the civil war is exposed to an international spotlight so that it moves up the political agenda. In many ways, the media's role is more important than that which we are playing here. If they gave the conflict greater coverage and it became a more important priority for the Foreign Office, that might create a greater sense of activism in the Government.
I conclude on one point that is directly relevant to my constituents. If Jaffna falls, as is possible in the next few weeks, there is real concern that there will be a backlash against the members of the Tamil minority living in the rest of the island. We know that 55 per cent. of Tamils in Sri Lanka live in the Sinhala south. It is to the credit of the Colombo Government that, despite the war that is going on there and despite suicide bombers, for example, such a backlash has not been allowed to
54WH
happen so far. I am not saying that there are not abuses of human rights and I am not saying that it is easy to be a Tamil living in Colombo, but there has not been a major ethnic backlash.
If Jaffna falls, the situation will be much more difficult. The Colombo Government must prepare for that possibility, and the British Government must give their support to them in that respect. If Jaffna falls in the next few days, we must ensure that Tamil citizens living in the rest of the island are not attacked in any way. We must ensure also that their civil rights are fully protected by the Colombo Government.
I say that passionately on behalf of my constituents. Many people living in Kingston and Surbiton have loved ones who are living in Colombo or in the rest of Sri Lanka. They expect the British Government to make representations in the strongest way possible. They expect also that the Colombo Government will respect the rights of their relatives.
10.11 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I apologise for missing the first few minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and I thank him for securing the debate. Like other Members, I have some constituents who come from Sri Lanka. Over the years, I have been involved in many asylum cases, divided family cases and cases of missing persons from Sri Lanka.
It is difficult for people who have been resident in the United Kingdom all their lives with families who have been so resident to understand how painful it is when a member of one's family simply disappears and there is no possibility of locating him or her because there is no Red Cross access. Indeed, there is no way of knowing what has happened. It is assumed that the person is dead, but one can never be quite sure. That constant pain that goes through the lives of many people, mainly from the Tamil community, throughout the world. There is an enormous Tamil diaspora in all parts of the world. Those concerned are often high achievers who are making an enormous contributions to their communities here, throughout Europe, in the United States, Singapore and many other places.
We should recognise that there is a strong human feeling, both for people in this country and, obviously, for those in Sri Lanka. I became involved in the issue in 1983 when I was first elected to this place. Riots took place in Colombo during the European summer. In a sense, the riots were a continuation of the civil strife between the Sinhala and Tamil communities that had gone on before, particularly from 1958 onwards. I went to Sri Lanka in 1984, shortly after the 1983 riots. I will never forget the sight of many Tamil people holed up in the Hindu college in Colombo, which was the only safe place for them. If ever there were internal refugees, they were in that category. There are many more internal refugees in Sri Lanka.
There is not time this morning to go into the full history of everything that has ever happened in Sri Lanka, but clearly there was manipulation by colonial Governments in the past between the Tamil and Sinhala communities. That was fairly normal in most British colonies throughout the world. It was a method of

55WH
government. Tamil people on tea estates in central Sri Lanka were treated appallingly. There has been systematic discrimination against certain people, particularly Tamil people, for a long time. That background has led to the current crisis.
I have spent hours in discussions with people from the Sinhala community and from the Sri Lankan Government. I have also had discussions with representatives of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and other Tamil groups, especially in Geneva last August when I was at the United Nations human rights session. In a sense, one can understand the strong feelings that both sides express. The national pride that is exemplified in many of the statements made by the Sri Lankan Government is understandable. They do not want foreign interference or outside influences. They say that they will sort the issue out. Also involved is the integrity of Sri Lanka. Issues of national self-determination quickly come to the fore.
When talking to the LTTE and other Tamil groups, I hear them express feelings of injustice and discrimination. Against that background, there is the sheer brutality of the war. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey talked about roughly 60,000 being dead. I have no reason to dispute that figure. I do not know how accurate it is any more than the hon. Gentleman does, but a massive humanitarian disaster has happened throughout Sri Lanka. There have been suicide bombers and assassinations. Many of us know people who have died as a result of their involvement in the conflict and their desire for peace. I think of the huge efforts that Neelean Tiruchelvam made to bring about peace, for which he was assassinated.
We must reflect on the military methods that have been used. Since the early 1980s, when the conflict reached a new intensity, arms sales to Sri Lanka have been taking place. Many arms brokers have made a great deal of money out of the conflict. The latest delivery of Israeli KFIR planes to Sri Lanka means that the Sri Lankan air force will be able to undertake high-level bombing of Tamil positions. It will be able to fly above the anti-aircraft positions that the LTTE holds. As far as I am aware, the LTTE does not have any air cover.
We are either in a situation of turning the corner and bringing about a ceasefire and a peaceful solution to the issue, or we are into a fight to the death. Many of the soldiers in the Sri Lankan army are deeply demoralised by the process of the war and by what has gone on. Having lost brothers and families in the war, they have little inclination to continue. They will either withdraw from the Jaffna peninsula in almost the style of the USA from Saigon, or there will be a fight to the death, in which event air cover will be used and there will be heavy bombardment of many Tamil positions. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, the majority of Tamil people do not live on the Jaffna peninsula or in the north-east area; they live in the rest of the country. In that context, one fears for the future.
There is enormous rhetoric from both sides. The LTTE says that it will not negotiate on any terms. It claims that it is on the threshold of a military victory. There is rhetoric from Sinhala chauvinist politicians to
56WH
the effect that they are not prepared to concede anything. The run-up to an election is always a dangerous time. Chauvinist politicians will make the most of alleged military inefficiencies and defeats, for example, and pledge to fight their way through to the death. That is a terrifying prospect.
Parliament—and the UK as a former colonial power—has some responsibility for the antecedents of the conflict. What do we do about it? I understand that the Government have attempted to promote a resolution at the UN. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will explain that. I understand also that the Russians and the Chinese were unhappy about such a move and threatened to veto any proposed UN involvement or resolution.
In a sense, we are left with the Norwegian efforts. I applaud and admire Norway for its patience and involvement. It has been a far more effective involvement in many instances than the US will ever muster. The Norwegians proceed quietly, patiently and persistently. High-profile visits from US Under-Secretaries of State are not necessarily an enormous help.
One always has half an eye on the economic interests of the powers that are promoting peace. I suspect that the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation, of which Sri Lanka is a member, will try in the long term to turn Sri Lanka into a tiger economy. Many US companies see that as a basis for their operations in south Asia. They see it also as the basis for the development of free-market economies in that area. We must be slightly sceptical about US involvement.
Our immediate message must be that we are horrified by the loss of life in Sri Lanka and that we are terrified by the prospect of a fight to the death in the near future, with all that that would mean. We therefore must support what Norway is trying to do. We must insist that the Sri Lankan Government allow all necessary humanitarian aid to go in as quickly as possible. The embargo on medicines going into the Jaffna peninsula is outrageous. By any stretch of the imagination, it is not acceptable. Unfettered access for the International Committee of the Red Cross must be allowed.
Likewise, introducing censorship in the media and political control over methods of expression is no way to defend a democracy. Therefore, the early-day motions that we have tabled on that subject are particularly welcome.
We must say to the British Government and to others, "Please stop all arms supplies to the region." The normal rule is that any arms supplies carrying an end user certificate cannot be used for internal repression. There is no external threat to Sri Lanka. Those weapons are and can be used only as part of the prosecution of the war internally within Sri Lanka, so there is a strong case for an international arms embargo.
There are many signs that the peace talks that Norway is promoting will achieve something and, indeed, that the LTTE is prepared to negotiate, but it must be a peace with honour. There must be an understanding of the integrity—parity of esteem is a good way of describing it—of both communities in bringing about any solution. I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response. I hope that the Government fully support what Norway is trying to

57WH
achieve and will persist with trying to gain some United Nations involvement. However, UN involvement can come only if there is some understanding from both sides.
It may be that, if the Norwegian efforts prove fruitful, there will be a role for the UN in monitoring a ceasefire. It may become involved, but, if we are looking at a war where there will be victors and defeated, I fear for the human rights of minorities on both sides of any devolved Government who emerge in Sri Lanka.
It is a tragedy which the world's media have not covered with anything like the degree of intensity that they should have done. It has cost the lives of tens of thousands of people. Unless the peace talks come to some good end, thousands more young lives will be lost in a war that should never have been started and could be stopped. The way forward must be respect both within and between both communities, and recognition that they will both have to live on the island in future, whatever form of devolved government is set up.
The idea of a single unitary state with no form of devolution is not an option. There must be some agreement on that and some acceptance of the right of self-determination and self-government within the island of Sri Lanka by the Tamil people. That is the only way to bring about a long-term and lasting peace.
10.23 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I shall be brief.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on raising the debate, which is of great concern to us all. As he says, many of us have Sri Lankans living in our constituencies. Sadly, the war in Sri Lanka is, as he said, a forgotten war. In the world today, there are an awful lot of forgotten civil wars. Some of them—indeed, a lot of them—are hangovers from the old colonial days, when, for administrative ease, two distinct peoples were slapped together and ruled as one. That happened with Sri Lanka, with the Tamils in the north and the Sinhala in the south.
I do not think that there are any natural resources involved; the Minister may be able to tell us. Often, one cause of civil war is that there are natural resources in one spot and everyone is trying to get at them, but I do not think that that is the case in Sri Lanka.
In the early 1980s, Sri Lanka was a success story. Child mortality was falling rapidly. The number of children in education was very high. Literacy rates among adults in Sri Lanka are about 95 per cent. I have no idea what the rates among the children are, but Sri Lanka was not a third-world country, or considered to be a developing country in that sense. However, now, with $850 million a year, which is nearly 8 per cent. of its GDP, being spent on the war effort, education and health spending is tumbling. That will have a serious consequence for future generations of Sri Lankans. Despite that, the war rages on.
There are two main aspects, but the main one is always the supply of arms. In 1998 alone, 56 SIELs—standard individual export licences—for heavy machine guns, projectile launchers and sub-machine guns were granted to Sri Lanka. I must question that again and again when we see what is happening in that country.
58WH
Those must all have been used in some way for internal repression. What does the phrase mean? It is meaningless in this situation, and the Government must provide some clarity. There is no European Union or UN arms embargo on Sri Lanka, so the arms are flowing in there.
On the other hand, the other half of the equation, the Tamils, have become a fearsome guerrilla force built on arms trafficking and child soldiers. They have mastered the art of dealing in the world's small arms markets. They buy from Ukraine, Bulgaria and North Korea, no doubt helped by European arms brokers.
I think that the Minister says that I say this every week—but I now have to say it daily: when will we get some legislation to control the arms trade, and arms brokers in particular, before the world descends into chaos? What has happened to the EU resolutions to combat the excessive accumulation of light weapons? Landmines are used on both sides. What pressure have we put on Sri Lanka to sign the anti-personnel landmine treaty? What steps have we taken to condemn the use of child soldiers in the north? A lot of questions need answering.
We do not know how many tens of thousands of people have lost their lives in the war, but I know that there are 270,000 displaced children out of a total of 1 million displaced people. They are living in extreme poverty. They have nothing. They have had all their documentation taken away. I saw the same thing in Rwanda. People cannot prove who they are now. They are no one. They have no evidence to show where they came from or who they are, and no access to education and health care.
As we have heard, access to those people is difficult because the Sri Lankan Government block access to the north. One of the excuses about the delivery of aid is that the Tamil Tigers will misappropriate the aid and use it for themselves, and it will not go to the people—yet the Department for International Development has spent £7 million per annum in Sri Lanka over the past few years, half of which is spent on relief and half on education and reconciliation. It is channelled through non-governmental organisations, but how is it getting to the north?
What is our policy on development and humanitarian aid in situations of conflict? The situation in Sri Lanka differs from that in Sudan. Aid is not given to the north because it will be misappropriated, but the aid still goes to the south, where the perpetrators of the violence in the north are. I do not understand what the Government policy on aid is. I am puzzled by what they do in many other countries in the world, particularly Sudan. When will we persuade the Sri Lankan Government to help the displaced people and to allow the NGOs in?
The Tamils in south-west London whom I met in February asked me—and I will ask the Minister on their behalf—to call for sanctions on arms sales, more monitoring of human rights in Sri Lanka, relief for the displaced people, and ultimately expulsion from the Commonwealth. I support all those demands except the last. I do not think that that would help. I think that Sri Lanka needs to remain in the Commonwealth and that Commonwealth leaders should put pressure on Sri Lanka to negotiate a settlement. Like many other hon. Members, I urge our Government to take a more

59WH
vigorous and proactive role in the future to achieve some peace in that poor country, through the European Union and the United Nations.
10.29 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: We have had an interesting debate, which was movingly introduced by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) with a guide not only to his family history, but to his developing awareness of the problems in Sri Lanka. He spoke of the development of Sri Lanka and the questions that he has raised in the House about what is going on in that country. I urge him to press the Secretary of State for International Development for a response to the questions that he posed on 3 May, as I am rather distressed to find that to date he has not received a response.
The hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) made valuable contributions, a common theme of which was a criticism of the press for failing to highlight sufficiently the terrible goings-on in Sri Lanka.
It is therefore with a heavy heart that I tell hon. Members that during the debate, I received a message from outside the Chamber that BBC news and other media have a breaking story from Sri Lanka of a Cabinet Minister and at least nine others who have been assassinated today. The story was posted on the BBC at 9.36 am, and I know that the Minister of State will have news of this sad bombing and assassination. I hope that when he sums up, he will give us the latest information.
I am sure that the entire House sends its commiserations and condolences to the families of those who have been brutally murdered. We do not yet know the details, but we hope that the information will be forthcoming from the Foreign Office before the end of the debate. Today in Sri Lanka it is War Heroes day. One assumes that the bombing is a result of the events held in Colombo by the Government.
The conflict in Sri Lanka is a continuing story of violence and endless war. Like all hon. Members who have spoken this morning, we, too, want a political settlement, an end to the crisis and a return to normality and peace. The international community has rightly been engaged in the search for a solution. Mention has been made of Norway, but India and the United States have also made great efforts to broker a peace—sadly, largely to no avail.
When the Conservatives were in government, we called for a directly negotiated settlement between the Sri Lankan Government and the Tamils. Despite recent visits by the United States Under-Secretary of State, Thomas Pickering, and the Norwegian deputy Foreign Minister, Raymond Johansen, who have reiterated those calls, the military situation has deteriorated rapidly and the offers of mediation by the Indian Government have failed to gain momentum with either side.
Earlier this year the importance of securing a peaceful outcome was highlighted during the visit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the leader of the Conservative party,
60WH
who, as chairman of the International Democrat Union, chaired the executive meeting that was held in Sri Lanka in March. During that meeting, we as fellow Conservatives welcomed the membership of the United National party, which has joined the Asia-Pacific Democrat Union, one of the regional bodies of the IDU. At the same time, the UNP took up observer status at the IDU, which will lead to full membership at the next IDU party leaders conference in 2002.
Sri Lanka has gained an important new link with the international community through the inclusion of the UNP in that group. Now there is yet another opportunity of a forum in which Sri Lankans can pursue the shared values of democracy and freedom, which is essential for the resolution of the conflict.
During the IDU's executive meeting, there was an opportunity for some of the widespread problems experienced during the presidential elections to be aired. That led to a call, which we support, for the placing of independent monitors at an early stage in the forthcoming general election, to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred. I hope that the Minister will support us in asking the Sri Lankan Government to issue early invitations to observers, particularly from the Commonwealth, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the European Union.
I understand that when the leader of my party was there, nothing served as a more graphic example of the troubles in Sri Lanka than the bomb attack that took place during the IDU meeting. Again, the atrocity resulted in enormous loss of life and a huge number of injuries. Like the bomb today, it demonstrates the need to find a solution to the on-going problem.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was generous enough to acknowledge the efforts of the Conservative Government. I single out the efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), when he was a Minister, to promote the bipartisan approach that we seek. I believe that it was called the Liam Fox agreement, and has been promoted in Sri Lanka, not least by the opposition party. Part 1 of the agreement was signed by the Sri Lankan President. I should be interested to hear what steps the Minister and the Foreign Office have taken to build on that agreement.
There will be no winners in the war. It is an impossible war. There must be a negotiated settlement leading to a bipartisan solution. I hope that the Minister will let us know, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey pressed him to do, what active role has been played in the three years of the Government's tenure.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). The leaders of the Tamil liberation movement rightly accept the premise of that agreement—that if there is to be a settlement, negotiation must take place and there must be a bilateral view among the parties of government. It is no good reaching agreement with one party and then discovering that another party which might come to government is not bound by it. I understand that there is a general view, certainly in the opposition, that that is the way to proceed. There have been talks between the President

61WH
and the leader of the opposition. They must be as one in their agreement, so that genuine negotiations can take place. That is the only way forward.
Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman makes a logical and powerful point, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I thank the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey for his kind remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring. I am sure that my hon. Friend will read those with interest.
One of the main political issues in Sri Lanka is the emergency regulations imposed by the President on 3 May. It is believed that the Government's objective was to block reporting critical of the war, particularly at a time when 25,000 Government troops were trapped in the Jaffna peninsula. The early-day motions tabled on the issue have been mentioned in the debate. One was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend).
I hope that in the Minister's response, he will take the opportunity to join us in condemning those draconian regulations, which limit the freedom of association and the freedom of the press, and allow for detention without trial for up to a year. That, coupled with the restrictions on political and trade union meetings, is deeply worrying in the run-up to the elections.
Mr. Corbyn: Sri Lanka's prevention of terrorism legislation, which has been in place for most of the past 20 years, is also a denial of civil liberties. The more recent draconian measures are to be deplored, but so are the earlier measures.
Mrs. Gillan: I was not implying that the earlier legislation was less problematic. However, the developments are disturbing, especially in the run-up to the elections. They send the wrong signals. What representations have the Minister and the Foreign Office made to the Sri Lankan high commissioner? Does the Minister believe that the regulations run counter to the recent European Union note, which requested that Sri Lanka show respect for human rights? Does he believe that the regulations contravene the United Nations charter on human rights? If so, what action does he propose to take?
It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Sri Lankan Government are trying to shut down political debate and handicap the opposition in an attempt to cover up some of the defeats that they have suffered, primarily through poor political leadership and apparent corruption. Sri Lanka needs free and fair elections. That is an important issue in many parts of the world. How can the United Kingdom contribute to the process and support conditions in which free and fair elections can take place?
I should like to know the Minister's response to the European Union proposals. That has already been requested during the debate. As the Minister knows, the European Parliament has called for European members of the United Nations to introduce the subject for discussion before the Security Council of the UN. That caused a furore in Colombo, where a senior Foreign Office official perceived such a discussion as the precursor to the development of whet he described as a
62WH
mess such as those in Bosnia or Sierra Leone. Does the Minister believe that the EU demands are helpful and justified? Does he support them? If so, how will he pursue them?
We all want an end to the conflict, which has consumed thousands of innocent lives. I appreciate that numbers are always doubtful, but the latest reports state that some 62,000 people have already been killed in the conflict. I hope that the Minister will explain what commitment the Government will make to applying diplomatic pressure, thus contributing to a solution and hastening the end of a seemingly endless and pointless war.
10.42 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for raising this subject and for the timely opportunity to respond to his speech. It allows me to make the first ministerial statement on Sri Lanka for seven years. I readily acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's involvement with Sri Lanka, his family's connection with that country and the expert knowledge with which he spoke today. Madam Speaker also has a long and close association with the island. That underlines the importance that Britain attaches to the people of Sri Lanka.
I welcome the opportunity to express the Government's deep concern about the tragic situation in Sri Lanka, which was so well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), by the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), with whose speech I agreed to a large extent. We are especially worried about the fighting on the Jaffna peninsula. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey urged us to do more. We are doing a great deal, which I shall explain.
I shall outline what we are doing, together with our international partners, to try to encourage a peaceful resolution of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. However, I shall first bring hon. Members up to date, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham invited me to do, with the appalling incident that took place today. As we have been speaking, reports have reached us about a suicide bomb near Colombo. The Minister for Industrial Development, C. V. Gunaratne, and at least 10 others have been killed, and several people have been seriously wounded at a memorial parade to commemorate War Heroes day. The British Government condemn such acts of terrorism in the strongest terms, and extend the deepest sympathy to the Sri Lankan Government and to all the families of those who have been killed and injured. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members.
It is a tragedy that Sri Lanka, a country with such huge potential, should have been blighted for so long by civil strife. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey when he described the conflict as, to some extent, the world's forgotten civil war. The human cost of the conflict has been awful. More than 60,000 people have been killed, many more have been injured or maimed, and there are hundreds of thousands of refugees, both inside and outside Sri Lanka. Those are the people who have been directly affected.

63WH
Indirectly, the conflict has touched many more: the families of the victims, those who have remained in poverty because of the damage that has been done to Sri Lanka's economic development, and, as has already been said, the distortion of the economy into one that is arms directed rather than one that provides humanitarian relief and decent public services for its citizens. Young Sri Lankans, both Sinhalese and Tamils, have been forced to leave their country to find new lives overseas.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way to me, because I could not be here earlier as I had to attend a constituency engagement. I would dearly have liked to participate more fully in the debate.
The Minister spoke of refugees and people who have been displaced by the conflict. Will he join me in expressing anxiety about the Sri Lankan Government's refusal to allow a ceasefire during the current conflict in the peninsula, although the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam offered one, to permit the 15,000 civilians who were there to leave the area? I believe that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees condemned that refusal. What representations did our Government make to the Sri Lankan Government on that specific point?
Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. We made strong representations to the Sri Lankan Government, who were wrong to refuse to agree a ceasefire to allow such an exodus. The scale of the human disaster has been dreadful. The conflict has had a huge economic cost, not only in the money that has been spent on the war effort, but in the work that has not been done, and the opportunities that have been lost due to lack of investor confidence. The war has held back Sri Lanka when that country should have been forging ahead to the benefit of all its citizens.
Our anxiety about the dreadful situation is compounded by two factors. First, Sri Lanka is a good friend. It is not a distant island about which we know nothing or care little. On the contrary, Britain has had a long and close relationship with Sri Lanka for more than 200 years. Our bilateral relations are excellent, with strong links in many areas. Approximately 200,000 people in this country have their roots in Sri Lanka. It pains us to see what is happening there. We cannot stand idly by and watch yet another humanitarian disaster unfold in a country with which we have such close ties.
The second factor is the unshakeable belief that Sri Lanka's ethnic problems cannot be resolved by military means. Seventeen years of conflict have made it abundantly clear that, to put it bluntly, the war is unwinnable. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about that. We are not alone in the international community in that view, and many in Sri Lanka share it. The cycle of violence, which has afflicted Sri Lanka for so long, must be broken if peace is to have any chance of taking root. For those reasons, we have long called for a lasting solution through a political settlement.
Since the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam launched their "Unceasing Waves" offensive against Sri Lankan forces last November, they have occupied the Vanni and
64WH
the strategic Elephant pass entrance to the Jaffna peninsula. While the battle ebbs and flows from day to day, the LTTE are close to Jaffna town, which they last occupied in 1995. In the past week, there have been reports that Sri Lankan forces are counter-attacking. There have been heavy casualties on both sides. The intensity of fighting has diminished in recent days, but the future of Jaffna remains uncertain. However, I must stress to the Chamber that, in the absence of reliable information, our assessment cannot be definitive.
There are also up to half a million civilians, the vast majority of whom are Tamil, trapped in the war zone—an area the size of Buckinghamshire. Although both sides have advised civilians to move away from the areas of fighting to safety, international non-governmental organisations believe that a significant number of civilians are trapped by the fighting. A curfew is in place, which not only hinders the movement of civilians, but hampers the aid agencies trying to help those displaced by the fighting.
It is difficult to be sure how many are affected, but there could be as many as 150,000 people. It is one of the most serious situations in the world. Water and sanitation appear to be the major problems. Government authorities and NGOs are trying to address those problems, but access to the areas affected by the conflict is difficult. The difficulties faced by the civilian population are therefore very real.
It would not be helpful to speculate on what might happen next in Jaffna, but continued fighting would add to the death toll on both sides, both civilian and military. Further heavy fighting would also delay the start of negotiating a political settlement of the conflict. It was because of our concerns about the continued impact of the fighting on civilians and on the prospects for peace that we pushed for a statement by the European Union on the deteriorating situation. The statement was issued on 15 May and called upon the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE to cease hostilities and begin negotiations immediately, with a view to securing a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
The EU reminded both sides of their responsibility to ensure the safety of the civilian population in conflict zones, in particular on the Jaffna peninsula. The EU joined the UN Secretary-General in urging both parties to co-operate with the Norwegian Government in their endeavours to facilitate a negotiated settlement of the conflict. I should add that Kofi Annan, in his statements of 9 and 24 May, expressed concern about the humanitarian consequences of the recent upsurge in fighting. He, too, urged both sides to avoid placing civilian lives at risk.
We have taken that matter up with the Sri Lankan Government, and the LTTE is also well aware of our position. They know that the safety of civilians is of paramount importance and that we call on them to abide by international humanitarian and human rights law and to look after prisoners. We also call on the LTTE not to carry out attacks against its Tamil opponents. We cannot forget the killings and abuses of human rights that occurred when the LTTE last occupied Jaffna, in particular those against members of the minority Muslim community. The eyes of the international community are on the LTTE.

65WH
A peaceful resolution of the conflict in Sri Lanka is vital, and Britain stands ready to help in the search for peace if both sides want us to play such a role. Far from being passive, as the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Kingston and Surbiton suggest, we are proactive, and I shall explain how. We have held discussions to make it clear that we welcome and support the Norwegian facilitation efforts. Let me take this opportunity to say that we recognise the importance of India's role in the search for peace, as the key player in the region. We welcome India's willingness to provide humanitarian assistance, if requested, and we are in close touch with the Indian Government.
As I said earlier, Sri Lanka is a good friend. We support its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The precise terms of any settlement are a matter for the people of Sri Lanka, but they will have to respect the rights and aspirations of all communities, including those that the LTTE claims to represent.
We welcome President Kumaratunga's firm commitment to a negotiated settlement and her attempts to reach consensus with the opposition United National party and other political parties, including the Tamil parties, on some form of devolution package to put to the LTTE. The constitutional status quo is neither politically desirable nor viable. We also welcome the undertaking given by the leader of the opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe, to put aside Political differences to try to achieve a bipartisan position on a future constitutional framework. Those are important steps forward, and we have been encouraging them.
I pay tribute to President Kumaratunga. She is a brave woman who commands our respect. I also pay tribute to one of my predecessors, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), whom the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned, for the efforts that he made in 1997 to persuade the president and the opposition leader to adopt a bipartisan approach to the peaceful resolution of the conflict. We continue to take forward the Fox agreement. I welcome the Leader of the Opposition's recent visit, during which he adopted a similar position; it was a valuable visit.
The process of negotiation will not be easy, as we know from our experience in Northern Ireland. Both sides will need to show patience and flexibility as talks get under way. They will need to make compromises. After 17 years of bitter conflict, it is wholly unrealistic to expect negotiations to be concluded quickly. It will take time to build up trust between the two sides.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham in reiterating the last point in the EU statement. We strongly regret the restrictions on civil liberties and press freedom under the emergency regulations introduced by the Sri Lankan Government. The EU called on them to lift the restrictions as soon as possible. Therefore, I welcome the lifting of restrictions on political meetings and processions on 2 June and the easing of the censorship rules for the foreign media on 5 June. I hope that that first step towards lifting the emergency regulations will soon be extended to the local media as well, as has been suggested by the Sri Lankan Minister responsible for the media.
We will continue to raise civil liberties and human rights concerns with the Sri Lankan authorities, although we acknowledge that they have taken steps to
66WH
improve their human rights record. Our high commissioner in Colombo has provided funding to several NGOs that promote good governance and democracy.
The LTTE has been responsible for serious human rights violations. We condemn the terrorist attacks in Colombo and elsewhere, which have killed and wounded many innocent civilians, including President Kumaratunga herself. On the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, we are strongly opposed to the LTTE's continued use of child soldiers, despite a 1998 commitment to the UN special representative for children and armed conflict not to use children under 18 years of age in combat.
Much diplomatic activity is taking place to try to bring about a cessation of hostilities and create the conditions for peace. I assure the Chamber that the Government, while happy for now to play a supporting role in the search for peace, remain in close and regular contact with the key international players. I have held discussions with the Indian deputy Foreign Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has held discussions with the Indian Foreign Minister. They undertook to keep in touch with us on the subject.
On 24 May, I held a meeting in London with my Norwegian counterpart, Raymond Johansen, as I did with his predecessor a few weeks before. I was keen to hear his impressions of the situation and we shared a perspective on it. We continue to keep in close touch and stand ready to help. We have kept in regular contact with the Sri Lankan Government. I have met, among others, leading bishops from Sri Lanka, who are in touch with a range of bodies, including the LTTE.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister may not have time to deal with everything now, but I ask him to ensure that if he cannot give us answers on the arms issues now, answers will be given, and publicly. Specifically, will he consider the idea that Britain should make it clear to the Sri Lankan Government that there must be international access to all parts of Sri Lanka, both to make the facts and the public's views clear and to facilitate the solution, in terms both of peace and of a new constitutional settlement?
Mr. Hain: Indeed, I am very content to do that. I am about to respond to the points about arms, but first I shall respond to the issues raised about relief. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to provide a detailed reply, a copy of which can be placed in the Library. We have made representations to Sri Lankan Government about the restrictions that have been placed from time to time on relief supplies into the Vanni, and we shall continue to do so.
On the detailed points about asylum seekers, which are obviously of concern, I shall ask my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to reply in detail, taking account of the points that hon. Members have made, and to place a copy of the reply in the Library.
I understand the points that several hon. Members have made about arms sales. Our policy is very clear: we approve arms export applications only if they do not involve arms that could be used for internal repression or external aggression. However, Sri Lanka has an

67WH
elected Government who have legitimate defence needs. Again, I shall write in detail to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
We are discussing with the EU the dispatch of election monitors to monitor the parliamentary elections later this year. Although we have held discussions with our colleagues—the Indians, those in the United States and others—to try to reach a common position at the UN, we were unable to do so, but we continue our efforts.

Education Standard Spending Assessments
11 am
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about a subject that is dear to the hearts of people in my constituency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney); he cannot be here today, and has made his apologies, but he convened the all-party group on this issue, which I think will be a very effective force. I hope that it will make a real input into the reforms of the system.
I want to express my gratitude for the increase in the education standard spending assessment in my constituency since 1997. I have asked a number of parliamentary questions on the subject over the past few months; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must be rather fed up with signing answers to my questions, but I have managed to elicit some useful information.
Cambridgeshire's SSA per pupil was at its previous highest, in real terms, in 1992–93. Schools then received today's equivalent of £2,578 per pupil. Throughout the years of the Tory Government the amount fell steadily, reaching its lowest level of £2,455 per pupil in 1995–96. There was a fall of £23 per pupil in three years. In those days we had a Labour-Liberal county council, which markedly increased the top-up provided from its own funds. It was at its highest in 1995–96, when it topped £15 million—but not for long: unfortunately, in the following year the council's budget was capped by the then Conservative Government, and it was no longer able to provide such a large top-up.
It is not difficult to see that it is the Labour party that believes in education, and the Conservative party that does not. Throughout the 1990s, the same pattern was repeated—a Conservative Government cutting money for schools, and a Labour-Liberal county council increasing the top-up. Since 1997, it has been a different story. The education SSA per pupil has increased in real terms year on year, and at £2,591 is now higher than it has ever been. However, the county council, which is now Tory-controlled, has reduced its top-up from £15 million in 1995–96 to under £5 million today. In 1998 and 1999, the council failed to pass on £3 million that was intended for school budgets. This year, pressure exerted by myself and others has forced it to pass on the full increase in education spending. At last schools are beginning to experience some relief from the downward spiral in their budgets.
Of course, SSAs are not the only source of funding for schools. The Government have also markedly increased the amount available for capital spending, and new classrooms and additional facilities are springing up like mushrooms all over the county. The cash that has made the largest difference has come from the standards fund: money to match the numeracy and literacy strategies, for computers, drug prevention and ethnic-minority achievement, and for many other important purposes. It totalled a massive £11 million last year, and will reach £15 million this year. That money has not been provided through the SSA, but has gone directly into school budgets.
We were all delighted with the additional £1 billion that the Chancellor found in his Budget this year

69WH
specifically to support school budgets. David Somerville, head teacher of St. Matthew's primary school. received £9,000 extra in his school budget. He wrote to me:
Please continue to do all that you can to support growth in school budgets. The modest increase in my school's budget this year has had a positive impact on morale—it is a pleasure to be having discussions with the staff about what to spend the extra money on rather than having to decide what to cut.
Another school in my constituency, Priory infants school, has been able to reinstate the post of home-school liaison officer, which was removed some years ago because of the loss of funds. It will make a huge difference in a part of my constituency where levels of social deprivation are high. Chesterton community college will be able to create an extra teaching group in year seven, thus reducing class sizes. It will also be able to create two groups for GCSE music, rather than one that would have consisted of 32 pupils. The head teacher, Bev Jones, e-mailed that information to me on her new laptop, provided from Government funds.
That money has been handed directly to schools, and is making a real difference. It is a source of enormous frustration to me, and, I am sure, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that money made available for education has not always found its way into school budgets. Sometimes that is because it has been siphoned off for other services, like the £3 million that I mentioned earlier; sometimes it is because the local education authority is top-slicing the money allocated and spending it on unnecessary central support services. I was quite shocked by the answer to a question that I asked my right hon. Friend last year about the percentage of the general schools budget that was devolved to schools by each LEA. In one of our neighbouring counties, Suffolk, the figure was nearly 80 per cent., but in Cambridgeshire it was a paltry 64.9 per cent., lower than in any other shire county.
I wrote to the Conservative chairman of the education committee, Councillor Wilkinson, to ask why the amount was so low. His reply made it clear that he did not consider the matter important. It would have been of enormous interest to schools. If Cambridgeshire had delegated its budget at the same level as Labour-controlled Suffolk, schools would have had an additional £27.7 million to spend. It is true that they would have had more services to buy, but they could have made their own choices about expenditure rather than the decisions being made for them centrally.
With the introduction of fair funding, Cambridgeshire has had to delegate more of its budget to schools. The way in which that has been done is a complete sham. I do not believe that any school has yet noticed a difference, or has been able to make decisions different from those dictated by the county council. In the past, Cambridgeshire held a very high proportion of the special needs budget centrally, and allocated resources to schools on the basis of the number of statemented children. Now the council is required to delegate that money to schools. Its pamphlet containing guidance for special-needs delegation to schools operating bank accounts was issued in March this year, and makes it clear that it regards the fair funding scheme as a bit of a distraction. It admits in the pamphlet that for new statements
The nominal budget allocation bears little relation to the allocation of resources to the school.
70WH
It also says:
A number of schools have expressed concern that having a budget on their budgetary control printouts that bears little resemblance to the actual allocation of resources could create a distraction and perhaps confusion.
I should say so! There is a considerable disincentive for schools to run their own bank accounts and to take control of their budgets.
The LEA points out that all is not lost: if schools were prepared to join its learning support assistance indemnity scheme, lo and behold, the LEA would continue to operate the existing familiar arrangements. In other words, nothing changes. It is clear that Cambridgeshire LEA is doing its best to ensure that it retains control of the school budgets. The method of achieving the 80 per cent. required delegation is highly questionable. I recently spoke to inspectors from the Office for Standards in Education who were completing their inspection of Cambridgeshire county council, and I hope that those concerns will be reflected in their report.
I welcome the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he was considering funding schools directly from Whitehall, without the money being filtered by the LEA. That would certainly overcome the problems that I have outlined. His statement produced a mixed reaction in Cambridgeshire. Conservatives condemned the proposals, but Labour councillor Josephine Percy was quoted in the Cambridge Evening News as saying:
This government is trying to do something about it by giving money to schools to spend their own way and not to someone else's sticky fingers at Shire Hall.
She went on to make the good point that
Some School Governors are better business people than County councillors. It's a very good idea.
In Cambridgeshire, it is clear that Conservatives want to hold on to central control of budgets while Labour councillors are prepared to give schools the autonomy that they want.
Finally, wide differentials in funding per pupil between LEAs are immensely important to parents and schools in my constituency. We are still operating a system introduced by the Conservative Government, and I am disappointed that the method of allocating funds has not been reformed. Most authorities compare themselves with Hertfordshire, one of the most generously funded shire counties. Cambridgeshire has the misfortune to share a boundary with Hertfordshire, and our schools know that others a few miles down the road have £160 a year more for each primary pupil and £206 a year more for each secondary pupil. The system is unfair, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is as keen as I am to see it reformed.
Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that Leicestershire, which has a short common border with Cambridgeshire, is the worst-funded of all counties? We are £332 per secondary school pupil adrift of Hertfordshire, and that plus our primary underfunding amounts to £13 million a year.
Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Propaganda is often put out that

71WH
Cambridgeshire is the lowest funded shire county for education, but I know that that is not true as Leicestershire is in an even worse position.
A White Paper is expected in July, and I hope that it will produce a workable and fair system. It will take time to implement its proposals, and schools cannot therefore expect real reform before 2002. In the meantime, however, some extra money allocated for education should be used to raise the funding of authorities in the bottom half of the league table to the funding of the middle one. Answers to my questions suggest that the costs of implementing that idea in England would be £511 million. It is a large sum, but the idea is affordable given the expanding education budget that the Government have provided. It would bring primary funding up to £2,435 per pupil, and secondary funding to £3,130, in each of the bottom 75 English authorities. That would aid my hon. Friend's county as well as my own and others.
That system would win widespread support, and it could be implemented quickly and easily. It would be seen to be fair, and it would not reduce funding for authorities in which there is high social deprivation. It would do an enormous amount to reduce pressure on authorities languishing at the bottom of the league. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider the proposal seriously. She is not responsible for deciding how SSAs are allocated, but I hope that she will press for the proposal, at least as interim relief for authorities, such as Cambridgeshire, that are in the bottom half of the league.
11.14 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am pleased to be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on securing the debate. Like hers, my constituents see this as a matter of great importance and will welcome a debate that allows us to examine it. Several Members wish to speak, and the debate is a short one, so I shall make just three points on my constituents' behalf and leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) to make points from the Front Bench.
My first point is that the Government have plainly shifted the basis on which standard spending assessments—education and others—have been calculated. Far from being unable to change the system inherited from the previous Administration, the Government have, the evidence increasingly suggests, distorted the system. I recall the Government's introduction of a plain English guide to grant distribution. In the first edition, in 1998, the document contained a section on SSAs entitled "Assessing Spending Needs". It referred to the fact that an SSA, though not a spending target, was an assessment of the budget required for an authority to meet a standard level of service, given its needs and costs.
When the second edition came out in 1999, that sentence had disappeared, and the paragraph was retitled "Sharing Out Resources", which is indicative of the route taken by the Government. They have stopped trying accurately to assess the needs, costs and relative resource of areas when it comes to distributing grant.
72WH
Instead, they take account only of their own choice of social deprivation indices and raw population statistics. The net result is a mechanism by which the Government have shifted resources away from shire counties and districts to metropolitan areas outside London. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere will pursue that point further.
Secondly, that policy has unhappy consequences for Cambridgeshire, which has the lowest SSA per head among education authorities in 2000–01. The Government are increasingly moving away from recognising the additional costs and needs associated with counties such as Cambridgeshire. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment was bold enough to admit that in a letter to me of 20 December. He acknowledged that Cambridgeshire's SSA increase was below the national average on a per pupil basis, but added that that
reflects a reduction in the share of the national total which it receives to reflect social deprivation and area costs.
The point is that matters that should have been considered for the SSA on a per head or per pupil basis were not included. The Secretary of State and other Ministers have acknowledged that the difference in funding for education SSAs between areas has largely to do with differences in area cost adjustment and the additional educational needs index. On both counts, I share the view of the hon. Member for Cambridge that the Government could and should have done more to arrive at a more equitable basis for distribution of funding.
The combination of failure on those two counts disadvantages Cambridgeshire pupils. The hon. Lady mentioned the relationship between Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire—the border lies in my constituency, and I know only too well that there are variations between £150 and £200 per pupil in some schools.
Thirdly, not only should the Government have done something, but they promised that they would. The hon. Lady did not refer—unsurprisingly—to a an interview given by the Prime Minister to the Cambridge Evening News on 30 April 1997, days before the general election, when he said that he would review the area cost adjustment and that its abolition would deliver at least £5 million more for Cambridgeshire. He also said that he would review it in time for the next financial year. The Prime Minister is presently making a speech elsewhere about traditional values, and I reckon that one traditional value that he should have maintained after the election was honesty. When he said that he would review the area cost adjustment in time for the next financial year, he did not mean that he would look at it; it had been looked at already.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he would review it, and that he would do so in time for the next financial year. Review it he has certainly done, and that promise has been met. I am just disappointed that the review did not lead to fundamental changes in the formula and that we are still undergoing that process. However, my right hon. Friend has met his promise to review the SSA.
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making precisely the point that I was making. The Prime

73WH
Minister made a pledge to review it in time for the next financial year. However, a review had already been done. The subsequent specific costs inquiry was, in practice, a basis on which a decision could have been made—arguably, not necessarily for the 1998–99 financial year, but certainly for the 1999–2000 financial year. The reason that the Government give for not having made a change to the area cost adjustment is that local authorities were not able to reach a consensus on it.
Forgive me, but I thought that the job of Government was to decide on grant distribution the basis of consultation, not necessarily to delegate their responsibility to the Local Government Association. It would come as an interesting revelation to the LGA if it were told that it was in charge of the standard spending assessment and grant distribution structures, as the association thought that the Government were in charge of them. The way in which, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister has worked other changes in grant distribution demonstrates that he does not necessarily take the actions that the LGA would have told him to take.
It is also true that the Prime Minister, in saying that he would review the area cost adjustment, made it very clear that, on the basis of the current Elliott review, he was prepared to take action. He made it absolutely clear that he was making effectively a promise to the people of Cambridgeshire—it would have been read similarly in other places—that the system would be reformed. It has not been reformed. The hon. Member for Cambridge is disappointed that it will not be reformed until 2002—not that there is a promise that it will be—but I think that it is a disgrace. This summer's consultation paper—it may or may not be a White Paper—should be a proposal for substantial reform, so that something can be achieved by 2001.
Mr. David Heath: Would it surprise the hon. Gentleman if I told him that the view that he has just ascribed to the Prime Minister is exactly the same as the one that was presented year after year by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who required consensus between the then Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils on reform of the area cost adjustment? That requirement is precisely why no change was ever made.
Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman may make that point, but we are not here to debate the previous Conservative Government. Moreover, it was the previous Administration who instituted the Elliott review, which provided a basis for the work. He may also care to read my Adjournment debate of July 1997, in which I acknowledged that the Government had a responsibility to undertake further work and that the specific costs inquiry was intended for that purpose.
The question is, which Government made promises to change the system, which Government undertook the second review to do it, and which Government had the material on which to do it, but have failed to do it? The answer is the current Government.
Mr. David Taylor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is still some way for the Government to go in
74WH
reforming education finance. However, does he agree that the problems and difficulties that we need to resolve pale into insignificance compared with the distortions that the previous Administration incorporated into education finance in relation to, for example, grant-maintained schools and the chronic neglect of the fabric of British schools, including information technology systems? The current Government have dealt with those matters in a major way.
Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me into the debate on grant-maintained schools. I should dearly love to do that, because many of the schools in my constituency that were grant maintained, but have lost that status precisely because of the Government's interference, were exhibiting precisely the qualities that the hon. Member for Cambridge exhorted when she said that the county council should be passing money to schools.
I should add that the hon. Lady should have applied that principle not only to the county council but, even more so, to the Government. The need for the principle to be applied to the Government is demonstrated by the size of the standards fund and by the fact that the annual report of the Department for Education and Employment lists 38 schemes—I counted them the other week—by which the Government are top-slicing money for this and for that. The Department has even top-sliced the SSA to cover the teachers pay and performance review. If the principle of getting money into schools applies to the county council, it applies even more to the Government—who are engaging in bureaucratic management from desks in Whitehall, rather than concentrating on supporting teachers at desks in schools.
Mr. David Chaytor: Although we are not debating the previous Government's record, we are concerned about consistency. Did not the previous Government say, year after year, that there was no agreement among local education authorities, and use that as an excuse for not changing the system? The real question is, which Government are now about to publish a document that will introduce proposals for the definitive reform of the system that I think all hon. Members in the Chamber desire?
Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is a rampant optimist, as the Government may or may not make such proposals—although such proposals already existed. There were 23 proposals in the specific costs inquiry on mechanisms to reform the area cost adjustment, but the Government chose to adopt none of them. If consistency is what he is looking for, he should have been there making that point—perhaps he was—in December 1999, when the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was dealing with the unfairnesses in the grant distribution system and the standard spending assessment. He clearly did not deal with unfairnesses in SSA in December 1999. He did not do what the Prime Minister, back in 1997, had promised my constituents, and, I think, what he had promised the constituents of the hon. Member for Cambridge. I am afraid that the Prime Minister and the hon. Lady will have to suffer, at the minimum, the embarrassment and, potentially, the harm that will come when, at the next general election, my constituents and theirs realise that that promise has not been fulfilled.

75WH
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a positive statement on what will be said in the document that will be published in July.
11.26 am
Mr. David Chaytor: I, too, should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on initiating this debate. It is extremely timely in view of the imminent publication of the Government's proposals, which I believe are expected in July. The matter is extremely important for the local authority in which my constituency is located.
Although I do not necessarily wish to contradict the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), on the figures that I have, Cambridgeshire is not the lowest-funded local education authority by any stretch of the imagination. For the current year, the standard spending assessment for my local authority of Bury is £2,299, whereas it is £2,313 for Cambridgeshire. In my local authority, the secondary SSA is £2,941, whereas in Cambridgeshire it is £2,964. I should like, therefore, to shift the emphasis a little from Cambridgeshire and describe very briefly some of the difficulties faced by the local education authority in Bury.
Mr. Lansley: There will be a limit to how often we can trade statistics, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has very kindly supplied me with the figures. According to an answer given on 10 May by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, for 2000–01 Bury has an SSA per head of £782, whereas Cambridgeshire has an SSA per head of £613—which, according to the Department's table, is ranked 150th out of 150 education authorities—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) interrupts, but—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is making an intervention, not a speech.
Mr. Chaytor: I think that the confusion may have arisen because I am quoting education SSAs, not per capita SSAs.
Mr. James Paice: The point is that there is a direct correlation between the education SSA and the SSA per head. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) failed to emphasise the point that Cambridgeshire county council, under several different political leaderships, has consistently added to the education SSA, because it was not enough. However, as she said, the council has done it at the expense of other services. The fact is that, if the overall education SSA were higher, it would be much easier not only to pass on education SSA increases, but to improve the other services that have had to suffer, rightly, to maintain the higher level of education spending.
Mr. Chaytor: Of course there is a relationship. The hon. Gentleman's argument is exactly the same as the one that we in Bury put to the previous Government. Our local education authority spent at about 10 per
76WH
cent. above SSA to ensure that schools were adequately funded. It is interesting that, in the year before the last general election, our capacity to spend above SSA was almost entirely taken away by the spending cuts in the Conservatives' last Budget.
I shall move on from trading statistics relating to Bury and Cambridgeshire and focus entirely on Bury. In addition to being in the bottom sixth of authorities for education SSA, Bury is one of the smallest metropolitan districts in the country, and the combination of low funding and small size causes particular problems. Bury has historically been underfunded—it was underfunded by Conservative Governments throughout their 18 years in office—but, as I said, the local authority was able to compensate by spending above SSA. It spent about 10 per cent. above SSA for several years, which provided a degree of protection to Bury schools and laid the foundation for their now widely recognised excellent quality. That capacity was taken away by the Conservatives' last Budget. As a consequence, the local authority had to cut education funding by 10 per cent., which resulted in dramatic cuts in local school budgets. That became one of the most important themes of the general election campaign in my constituency.
At this point, I shall draw another comparison between Bury and Cambridgeshire. It will be the last, because I am not criticising my local authority in any way—it is one of the best-regarded local authorities in the United Kingdom. It received an excellent Ofsted report and it is highly regarded by schools in the district, which is an important test of an LEA's value. Despite the historically low funding, the local authority's fine track record of making valiant efforts to compensate for that means that it has delivered, through local schools, remarkably high achievement. In SATs and GCSE results—I regard league tables with some scepticism, but that is the raw information we have to work with—Bury is always one of the best-performing metropolitan districts. In terms of key stage 2 results, it is one of the best-performing districts in the United Kingdom.
I concede that some might say that, even if it is poorly funded, the authority has recorded high achievement, which undermines the argument for an increase in funding. My response is to say that that high achievement has been achieved by staff, both at the LEA and in schools, working in excess of reasonable expectations. They are overworked, stressed and exhausted, entirely because the funding available to them is significantly less than the national average and significantly less than that received by districts that, to all in intents and purposes, are similar or even parallel in terms of socio-economic indicators.
That brings me to the index of social deprivation produced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. There is an interesting contrast between Bury's positions in the SSA league table and in the index of social deprivation. I realise that the index is under review and that consideration is being given to new methodology, but in the 1998 aggregate index of social deprivation, Bury is 116th out of about 355 local authorities—not all of which are LEAs, of course. Therefore, we are in the bottom third of authorities in terms of socio-economic indicators. However, in terms of education SSA funding, we in the bottom sixth of authorities; in primary SSA, we are 126th out of 150 LEAs; and in secondary SSA, we are

77WH
128th out of 150 LEAs. There is a clear discrepancy between the methodology used to arrive at education SSAs and that used to compile DETR's index of social deprivation. That discrepancy between Bury's socioeconomic status and the funding the authority receives is the cause of our concern.
There are weaknesses in the system. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned the area cost adjustment, which is the subject of our strongest criticism as well. He also said that tie Government have not changed the SSA methodology, but that is not strictly true. I recall that a change was made two years ago to the social services SSA to cover the element relating to children's services. There was almost, but not quite, a change made to the additional educational needs allowance. However, a significant feature of the debate in the past two years is that, finally, all sides have come to agree that the area cost adjustment is no longer an accurate or sustainable measure by which to allocate SSAs.
The area cost adjustment gives a significant advantage to London boroughs. No one denies that London boroughs have special needs that have to be addressed, but it is ludicrous that the 20 best-funded authorities in the education SSA league table are all in London, whereas in the index of social deprivation the ratio of the major midlands and northern cities to the poorest London boroughs is about 50:50. There is clearly a problem in distribution between north and south.
Another problem is that all London boroughs and those on the fringes of Greater London benefit from the impact of the area cost adjustment, regardless of the precise needs of their area and their position in terms of socio-economic indicators. Therefore, many boroughs located in the leafier suburbs receive a generous benefit and, even within authorities, many schools located in leafier suburbs receive the general benefit from the increase in authority's funding attributable to the area cost adjustment.
We have made progress in the past two or three years, albeit riot as much as we would have wanted. I welcome the announcement of the publication in July of the Government's paper—I am not sure whether it will be a Green or a White Paper. My local authority, Bury's schools and I are not ungrateful for the changes that have already been made—for example, the year-on-year increase in SSA for the past three years, the new funding through the standards fund, and the new deal for schools. In the last year of the Conservative Government, about 50 per cent. of primary school classes had more than 30 pupils, whereas, as of this September, no child in Bury will be in an infant class of more than 30 pupils. There has been a significant increase in funding. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, I regret that the standards fund and the new deal have not been used more specifically to correct the deficiencies inherent in the SSA mechanism. The Government could have done that over the past two or three years. None the less, we are grateful for the extra funding.
My main point is that the current SSA system is unsustainable and methodologically unsound. The results stand in contrast with the DETR index of social deprivation because the two methodologies used contradict each other. Reform is needed. To an
78WH
increasing extent, we are operating a national system of education: teachers salaries are set nationally and we have a national curriculum. There is clearly a minimum amount of spending needed to run a school successfully in any part of the country, so we must examine the possibility of setting a national minimum level of funding. In the interests of fairness and equity, that funding should not vary much between different parts of the country. I support the E40 group of local authorities, which is campaigning for a basic standard of funding that does not vary by more than 5 per cent. from the median SSA for all local authorities.
11.39 am
Mr. Steve Webb: I shall be brief because I know that several hon. Members wish to speak.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on securing this important debate. The first of my three points is to thank her for her role in the all-party group that is trying to tackle the issue on an all-party basis. So far this morning, we have—perhaps understandably—slipped into a bit of a party political dogfight, but the only way forward is for us to come together to recognise common cause. Sniping at each other's records or achievements does not help to achieve a fair deal for all authorities of all political complexions. I hope that we can maintain that cross-party drive, because we will make more progress by doing so.
Secondly, I continue my campaign to ensure that, when the Minister is opened up, the words "South Gloucestershire" are written across her heart. Statistics have been traded, but if I may, I shall quote just one. Of all unitary and metropolitan authorities and shire counties, South Gloucestershire is at the bottom of the league for primary education funding.
I mention that because South Gloucestershire is a young authority. It was created as a shadow authority in 1995, but it is like a child who has been shackled from birth. In every year of its existence, under both major political parties in government, it has been bottom of the table and never received fair funding. That is a dreadful birthright for a new authority which wanted a bright new start.
The Minister knows that I am concerned that the position is made worse by out-of-date data. Many children regularly move into the area, but official figures take a long time to catch up. I have even offered to type them in myself if it would speed up matters. I implore the Minister in this age of the internet and modern technology to consider the use of provisional school numbers. If they turn out to be wrong, adjustments can be made the following year. It is unacceptable for funding to take nearly two years to catch up with pupil numbers. We end up educating a primary school's-worth of pupils for not below average funding, but for nil money. Therefore, we suffer a double whammy: less funding per head than anybody else and many invisible pupils. That is the background against which we are working.
I pay tribute to my local authority, South Gloucestershire, as the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) has to his. It has achieved very good results—not least because it is having to spend well above the standard spending assessment for education.

79WH
That extra is found by putting up council tax by much more than anybody would want, and by starving some other vital community services. A low education SSA has a knock-on effect on the range of council services. Many of the things about which people complain in our surgeries are rooted in the fact that education, which my authority prioritises, is starved of adequate cash.
To give an indication of the magnitude of the problem, my authority has calculated that, if it received average education and social services funding, the council tax could be not £20 or £50 but £200 lower. To put that another way, the authority could spend more on education and other services and the council tax could still be lower. The scale of underfunding is huge. In a band D council tax of about £820, £200 makes up the shortfall. My constituents are very angry about the council tax that they must pay. They recognise the council's commitment to education, but such underfunding surely cannot be allowed to continue.
My final point is about how long such underfunding will go on. I hope that the Minister will give a clear idea of time scale. My worry is that, following the consultation paper—perhaps no more—in July and completion of consultation on it, there is no way that, on the brink of an election, there will be any change by April 2001. Therefore, adjustments will probably not be made until the financial year 2002–03. Presumably, in any change, there will be many gainers and many losers, but the Government will not want big losers. Unless there is significant extra money, there will be no big gainers. Therefore, it will be years before the injustice disappears. Children who entered school when the Government were elected in 1997 will have probably completed their primary education and have missed out before the problem is rectified.
I hope that the Minister will give a clear indication that, during the transition, additional money will be made available to oil the wheels in order to protect the losers, so that those who have suffered rough justice will not be told that they will have to wait another five years for a fair deal.
11.44 am
Mr. David Rendel: I am also delighted that we have had this important debate, as I am part of the group of 40. Needless to say, I would not be in that group if my local education authority, West Berkshire, were not among those most poorly funded under the standard spending assessment system. I am sorry to see that and hope that something will be done about it. The Government have a wonderful opportunity to do so in the spending review this summer. I hope that we shall see more funding for education, particularly for authorities that are among those least funded.
My point about West Berkshire is not the main subject of my remarks. I should like to make a much more fundamental point about the methodology under which SSAs are calculated. There is an important lesson to be learned in considering future methodology.
As I understand it, the current system is an attempt to decide the standard spending assessment in each area according to need. Obviously, the number of pupils, both primary and secondary, is the main consideration,
80WH
but SSAs are also based on the number of pupils with additional needs of one sort or another—whether they come from single-parent families, have parents who live outside the United Kingdom or whose parents are on income support—on sparsity, which affects the size of schools and the amount of school transport needed, on the number of pupils who are eligible for free school meals and on the area cost adjustment. Most of us would accept that all those indicators in some sense affect educational needs. The question, however, is how much weight is given to each indicator.
The weight is calculated through regression analysis of education spending in each area in 1990–91. The system works only if one assumes that such spending was a fair indication of each area's needs. The flaw in the logic of the methodology is that we do not know whether such spending was an accurate indicator of real need. Indeed, it is fairly clear that it was not. In 1990–91, a number of shire authorities were Conservative-controlled, and spending on education in them compared with that on other things was probably lower than in areas elsewhere. On the whole, the emphasis in those shire counties was to try to keep down local taxation.
It is not my case to argue whether that was right or wrong; it does not matter to my argument whether it is politically more sensible to try to keep down local taxation or to push up education spending. My point is that, if one assumes that education spending in that year is dependent on need, one fails to take into account the fact that some areas were keeping down their education spending for political reasons rather than because their needs were not as great.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes the point well. It is one that I shied away from making. It is certainly true that Cambridgeshire county council, which was a very low-spending authority in 1990, has suffered from that legacy ever since. I hope that that will be put right by the White Paper.
Mr. Rendel: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.
On the whole, those areas that were controlled by authorities that were trying to keep down local taxation tended to be ones with comparatively high sparsity and comparatively few pupils with special needs, whereas those areas where education spending was higher and the need to keep down local taxation was less of a priority tended to be ones with lower sparsity and more pupils with additional needs. The regression analysis may simply show which parts of the country were controlled by which party rather than the real weight that should be attached to the different need factors.
If we continue to use such regression analysis, we will always come up against that problem. To make sense of such analysis, one would have somehow to find a year in the past in which the spending of local education authorities was in proportion to each area's real needs. If it is not true that 1990–91 is such a year, it is even less true that any subsequent year is, because education spending has continued to be based on what it was in 1990–91 and the flaw has been maintained throughout. If we were to choose a year before 1990–91, we would

81WH
have to find one in which every authority in the land was governed by the same party or al least had the same weight given to the area's real needs. Frankly, there is no such year.
My point is not only that West Berkshire would like some more money but that, more importantly, the use of regression analysis to discover what weight should be given to the various additional needs of different education authorities has a basic logical flaw. I beg the Government, when they come up with their new system, not to use such analysis but to try to come to an objective view of what extra money should be given to each area because of sparsity or special needs.
In practice, the Government have already accepted that regression analysis does not work, because the value that would be given to the sparsity factor according to such analysis is lower than the value that is currently given. It has become clear from the level of funding that is given to local education authorities with a high sparsity factor that the regression analysis has failed to come up with an adequate value. The Government have had to intervene and give an artificially high value.
Having accepted that such analysis does not work, I hope that the Government will abandon a false methodology that inevitably leads to a formula that is not fair and does not provide for the real needs of an area. I hope that they will look for a more sensible way of calculating the weight to be given to each value in future.
11.54 am
Mr. David Taylor: I want to high light the Leicestershire position and to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), whom I congratulate on securing this debate at precisely the right time. We may be having a Dutch auction concerning who has the lowest SSA per capita, but Leicestershire is at the bottom of the league tables for county, not unitary, authorities. We are 6 per cent. adrift of the county average for primary and secondary pupils and about 12 per cent. adrift of the best-funded county, Hertfordshire.
We are pressing my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that a more equitable system results from the review, which is at such an advanced stage. Yes, we want a national pupil funding rate and a minimum education funding level, but we must not fail to recognise the key measures of social deprivation—London weighting and rural weighting—and squeeze out those attempts to create a fairer system. We all know that there is no absolutely fair system, no holy grail in some cellar of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that, when opened, will reveal the perfect SSA formula., but we want to alter the mechanisms at the fringes in a way that will improve matters significantly for our own authorities.
I strongly welcome the recent initiatives, especially in the last Budget, for some direct funding of schools. I chaired the governing body of one of the largest schools in Leicestershire, Ashby Grammar school—despite its name, a comprehensive—until the general election. The last governors' meeting that I attended was heartened and encouraged by the announcement that we were to receive £50,000 for our standards fund, and that is most welcome.
82WH
This may seem perverse, but I would caution against going too far down the path that leads to very high levels of funding going directly to schools, because that way lies the inevitable demise of local education authorities. I am troubled by the language that I hear, sometimes from Ministers but more often from Opposition Members, about local education authorities top-slicing and siphoning off funding that is intended for schools. If we are not careful, we will starve and accelerate the end of some well-regarded education authorities, with Leicestershire among them.
Leicestershire was one of the very first authorities to introduce an effective system of comprehensive education when the 11-plus was widespread and to introduce high-quality community education. We are highly regarded not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe for the musical, literary and cultural dimension in our schools.
I hope that there is no hidden agenda to let local education authorities wither on the vine. If there is, I cannot subscribe to it. Poorly funded though Leicestershire is, we are immensely grateful for the huge strides that have been made since 1 May 1997. The improvements in our overall grant and other forms of finance outstrip the gaps that we still have.
Let us put the matter in context. There are still one or two steps that my hon. Friend the Minister can take to ensure that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions responds effectively and provides an adequate formula, but let us not overstate the case or have a secret agenda to end LEAs, particularly in areas with a record like Leicestershire's.
11.58 am
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on securing a debate that I have been trying to get for the past two months. She obviously has some secret that I do not share. I also congratulate the many hon. Members who have spoken today. There is an element of repertory company about this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and I have certainly had many debates on the subject with the Minister, and it is good to see that some of the old arguments are being rehearsed yet again. They are arguments that we have been urging both at Westminster and elsewhere for many years.
One of the problems is that there was a real expectation, or at least aspiration, that the new Government would introduce changes in this area, and many of us whose education authorities are losers have not seen the changes that we had hoped for. Indeed, to some extent, the distortion in the SSA distribution is increasing, which means that the disparities between the authorities with the highest funding per pupil and those with the lowest are increasing all the time. That is difficult to accept for the education of children in our areas.
I shall start with some basic premises. We cannot get away from the need for a distribution system, and whatever system is chosen will inevitably have its complexities. We should also accept the fact that there will be differences in the total amount of funding available to pupils in different situations in different parts of the country, because there are differences in needs. A simple flat rate would not achieve the sort of education system that we want to see.

83WH
We should also accept the fact that some variation is acceptable, but it could reach a level that is unacceptable and that is the difficulty that many of us perceive in the system at the moment. The variation has grown to such an extent that it is clear that some children in some schools are not getting the entitlement that they should expect from a state education system in comparison with their better funded peers elsewhere.
Many components contribute to that, and we have already discussed some of them. For example, the area cost adjustment is significant. We have discussed that over the years, and we have asked what possible justification there can be for a system that gives additional funds to London and the home counties to meet so-called additional employment costs that simply do not exist, because we have a national wage rate for the major labour areas of teaching, the police and other services. Indeed, the argument could be made the other way that in some parts of the country—the west country, the midlands and the north—teachers tend to stay longer in their schools and reach the higher end of the scales, so that they cost more than teachers in London schools. That is why the area cost adjustment has been described in my part of the country for many years as a tax on the west. It is equally a tax on the midlands, the north and East Anglia, but not on the home counties, which do very well out of it.
Ministers have adduced the argument that stability itself provides a value. My argument—and the Minister has heard it before—is that stability of injustice is not stability but perseverance with an unfair system. Although I acknowledge the fact that we seek stability of funding throughout the education system, we want stability of fair funding, not stability of an unfair system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) have made the point about the effect on other services of an inadequate education SSA, and it applies within the education service and outside. If a local authority does not have sufficient funding for education, it still has to channel what it has into the statutory education service, because that is a principal responsibility. The effect is that the non-statutory sector loses out. Other essential services have to be robbed to maintain the education service. The social services do not receive the money that they should and highway maintenance is affected.
In Somerset—I was trying not to mention Somerset too often, but I have failed—we have, for many years, moved massive amounts of money out of the highways budget into education to fund our schools and that has the obvious knock-on effect that the roads do not get mended. People eventually wonder why they are paying higher council taxes but getting a lower service for their roads, and they are right to do so. It is a political decision that we are happy to take, but it is based on a basic injustice in the national system of distribution.
We have already touched on the impossibility of reaching a consensus on the issue, and I urge Ministers not to retreat again behind the facade of waiting for consensus from the Local Government Association. That would be like waiting for Godot. It is not possible
84WH
to achieve consensus, because that would mean that some members of the LGA were failing in their duty to represent their areas properly. Consensus cannot be achieved, because any system would create winners and losers—and the losers cannot be expected wholeheartedly to support that system. For many years, I represented the Association of County Councils in its negotiations with Government, and every time the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the then Secretary of State, would say, "Well, you do not agree about the matter; therefore, we cannot do anything." That is not acceptable, because it is the Government's responsibility to make the system fairer.
The Elliott review has been mentioned, but I hope that the Government do not go back to it. It was a disastrous review that made matters worse rather than better in many parts of the country. It was based on false premises and arrived at the wrong conclusions. I hope that we hear no more about Professor Elliott and his review.
The Government have, in previous answers on this issue, laid stress on the other funding mechanisms that are available and the extent to which they have been used to mitigate the unfairnesses in the SSA. It is true that, up to a point, standards funds and other funds have been used for that purpose, but, first, they are no replacement for basic, stable funding. Secondly, they put too much power in the hands of Ministers to decide what is appropriate, rather than the schools themselves—which is where we would like to see it. Thirdly, they involve new thresholds. In my constituency recently, we had the ridiculous situation in which a primary school lost £3,000 from the Government's welcome initiative to provide more money simply because its roll, which had been at 102 for the past six years, dipped to 99 because one family moved in the crucial month. A new family has moved in, so the school roll is back over the hundred mark, but the school has still lost the £3,000. That is an illustration of the blunt instrument of the thresholds for funds. The bidding system itself consumes huge resources.
Adjustments in the distribution formula will be made effectively only in the context of rising overall budgets. If there are real-terms losers across the system, people will object—and rightly—if their schools lose money because of a change in the system. If budgets are rising, a differential can he introduced that enables the poorest authorities to catch up a bit. That is what we ask Ministers to do.
We seek a system based on fairness and an entitlement on the part of children and schools to a basic level of funding. The proposals from the all-party group form one way of achieving that. I do not claim that that is the best way, or that the proposals accord with any party's policy position. The mechanism that has been put forward would not create effective losers, because it does not address the issue of the London boroughs: instead, it proposes that the least well funded authorities should have an increase to bring them up to the level of the median. I hope that the Government will take that seriously. The Government profess an interest in education and social justice, and this is a clear illustration of how they can put that into effect.
Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment understand the arguments very well, but the question is whether they are able to put them

85WH
sufficiently forcefully to their colleagues to achieve real change in the system. What is the timetable for that change? Those are the questions that we would like the Minister to answer today.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has indicated that he would like to make an extremely brief contribution. He has listened to the whole debate, and I intend to call him.
12.10 pm
Mr. James Paice: I shall start my very brief contribution with an apology for the fact that I missed the first minute of the speech by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I congratulate her on securing this debate.
The central issue is clear cut. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has already spoken about the Prime Minister's broken promise of April 1997. It is nonsense to say that the matter was reviewed. Any fool can hold a review if all it amounts to is looking at the books and then closing them again. A review needs to be comprehensive, and the Prime Minister's promise will not be fulfilled if no changes are made.
The hon. Member for Cambridge criticised Cambridgeshire county council for not spending more than £4.7 million above the education SSA. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire noted, the Government said, in their first 18 months in office at least, that SSAs were designed to provide a standard level of provision. Therefore, if Cambridgeshire were to spend at the level that the Government consider to be the standard level of provision, £4.7 million would be cut from the education budget.
Finally, the hon. Member for Cambridge spoke about transferring other resources as what she called an "add-on" to the education SSA. However that money would have to come from other services. The hon. Lady criticised the county council for taking £3 million out of education for use in other services a year or so ago, but she failed dismally to suggest which of those services should have borne a budget cut. In the year to which the hon. Lady referred, the social services budget was given a zero rise and so could not possibly have absorbed a cut. That means that roads, public safety, or some other service would suffer.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Cambridgeshire people feel very angry about this matter. They see what happens over the county border and they believe that the April 1997 promise made in Cambridge to the Cambridge Evening News has been broken. Come the next general election, they will remember that broken promise.
12.12 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on securing this debate. We have heard good and well-informed speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr.
86WH
Paice), as well as from the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), for Northavon (Mr. Webb), for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), for North—West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
Two points of controversy arise from the speeches by the hon. Member for Cambridge and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to the promise made just before the general election about the area cost adjustment. There are many differences of opinion on the matter, and the hon. Member for Cambridge offered a defence of the Government's actions, but it is fair to say that nothing came of the Prime Minister's promise. People in Cambridge who relied on that promise will have been disappointed.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire underlined the extent of that disappointment, when he referred to figures contained in a written answer given by the Minister. It seems that all the hon. Members present for the debate represent authorities that are bottom of the league, but the Department for Education and Employment statistics in the written answer of 10 May show that, on the basis of standard spending assessments per head of population, Cambridgeshire education authority comes 150th out of 150.
That is slightly surprising, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said that Cambridge—and, no doubt, other parts of Cambridge—has its own particular needs. I understand that Cambridgeshire has a rising pupil population.
Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clappison: I am afraid not, given the time constraint. I shall come to the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier in a moment. As he knows, tables of SSAs per head of population are important, given the knock-on effects on other services. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire underlined that, as did the hon. Member for Northavon.
Why is Cambridgeshire bottom of the league? Is there a clue in the identity of the authority in 149th place, which is Oxfordshire? I began to wonder whether the residents of those authorities were being punished for the presence of elitist institutions in their midst, but I believe that more of an explanation can be found in the detailed speech from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. His analysis of the changes that have taken place in SSA distribution under this Government was correct. The changes have happened quietly, while the Government held the review and prepared the Green Paper.
The Government appear to have shifted away from the previous system, which took into account needs, costs and resources. The priorities have changed, and weight is now placed on different factors. That has disadvantaged shire counties such as Cambridgeshire.
Mention has been made of SSA per pupil. Cambridgeshire has slipped markedly down these rankings too during the lifetime of the Government and is now further below the average for SSA per pupil than it was in 1997.

87WH
Other changes have taken place since the election. There has been a shift in resources allocation within the SSA, and there has been a very important change in the proportion of SSA funding devoted to core funding for schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said, that amount has shrunk since the Government came to power. It has been estimated that this year the proportion of funding devoted to schools from SSAs, after local authority contributions are taken into account, will be 92.4 per cent. In 1997–98, the proportion was 98.2 per cent.
Although it is right to say that the proportion of funding for schools coming through the standards fund has grown, that has been at the expense of the proportion devoted to core funding. Many people have pointed to the consequences for schools. Dr. Keith Major of the Wiltshire Association of Governors found that the core funding for his school fell well short of what the Government promised. In an open letter to the Secretary of State, he said:
This does not take account of the additional funds for specific purposes available to schools from the Standards Fund. It does seem ludicrous to be having to consider further redundancies in support staff only to be recruiting others, albeit on short-term appointments, supported by the Standards Fund. It should not be necessary for a school to have to rely on this fund to maintain the basic activities of a school.
The debate has to be set against the background of a system that has become ever more complex. It was never exactly straightforward, but the Government have heaped extra layers of complexity on it. They have channelled funds through many different streams of funding, to the perplexity of schools, governors and local education authorities alike. We want a more straightforward system that will bring more direct funding to schools. Money should follow schools, and heads and governors should take their own decisions.
Judging by the contributions from the hon. Member for Cambridge and others, we appear to have some support from hon. Members who want more direct funding for schools. In contrast, the Government seem to want to create a very complex system.
We shall wait and see whether the Green Paper will introduce a more straightforward and fairer system, but we doubt that it will remedy all the cries of disappointment. We believe that those who want a more direct and straightforward system will be disappointed by the Green Paper but it is possible that they will get some consolation and satisfaction in the fullness of time—which may be a shorter period than is currently envisaged by Labour and Liberal Democrat councils.
12.20 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on securing the debate? She told me last night that she first requested it more than two months ago, so the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has some time to wait yet.
I find myself in an unusual position, although it is always the same when we debate standard spending assessments. I do not disagree significantly with the
88WH
comments of most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. There is a genuine issue about authorities that are underfunded. It is perhaps opportune that we are in Westminster Hall, where we do not tend to sit in such party political groupings. In the debate on SSAs, the dividing lines of the battle are not drawn along political lines. There is no member here today who represents an inner London borough. As the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) did not say so, I will say on his behalf that we are the only two Members here whose constituencies are not massive losers because of the SSAs that relate to Hertfordshire and Birmingham.
Of course there are massive disparities. I do not for a minute defend the fact that children who go to school in Bury, Cambridge, Northavon, Somerset in Oxford or anywhere else should be worth less than those who go to school elsewhere in the country, or that their teachers should have to manage with fewer resources.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) summarised the position. In the past, the formula was not perfect, but it has become less perfect as we have tried to adjust it year after year. It is like trying to keep a leaking boat afloat. We plug each hole as it arises, but new initiatives cause funding problems, so we knock the balance out of the funding system elsewhere.
Hon. Members will know, because I have talked about it so often, that I am deeply unhappy at having to explain a system that is flawed. I wish it were otherwise, and I, too, wish that it could have been changed in a year. I will come on to that in a moment. However, the Government do not believe that the way in which schools are funded and the inequality in funding between children in different areas is somehow defensible for reasons of social justice or fairness. To that extent, we are all on the same side.
Since the election, there has been far more public concern about the funding system, yet it is the same as it was before the election. Opposition Members say that that is because expectations were raised and the change was not made in the first year. The Government were right to put this on the agenda. They were right to be open and say that the funding system was not fair enough. I suspect that it was not on the agenda before the election and was not such an issue of public debate across the country because not only did the previous Government do nothing about it, but they did not put it on the agenda or draw attention to it. Not only did they not try to rectify the system, but they never publicly acknowledged that it was wrong.
I do not want to be party political about this, however, because I agree with Opposition Members who have said that the only way to get this right will be to look at the country as a whole. For once—and this will be tough for all of us—we must put party political differences aside and try and secure a system that will give local politicians, whatever their party, an equal chance of running an education service that they can be judged on, without being hampered by inequalities in the system.
The issue is probably more in the public domain now because as more money is pumped into education, the formula becomes more important. If the formula is not fair to begin with, inequality is piled on inequality. Therefore, one is made angry twice, thrice, four, five and

89WH
six times. Not only was the base budget not fair in 1997, but Members, local authorities and parents have seen a Government who have honoured their commitment to putting more money into education, and as long as the flawed formula is used, people feel that they are suffering even more than they did in the past.
We could have distributed the £50 million that was made available in the Budget. A number of hon. Members have mentioned this. It would have been reasonable; it might even have been expected. We could have distributed it along SSA formula lines. It would simply have meant that the constituencies of hon. Members here today and others like them would not have received as much money, while others, like me, would have seen schools in our constituencies benefit from more money. I think that what we did was right—it was a small sign, a small acknowledgement. We paid that £50 million through a special grant and, where possible, we took the opportunity to distribute it as a flat rate. There was an element of rough justice in its distribution—I feel desperately sorry for the school that lost its pupils—because it was done quickly, and we wanted to make it as simple and fair as possible.
In the time I have left, I want to concentrate on what we are going to do about it. I accept that there is an obligation to do something. I say openly that I would be deeply unhappy if the Government said in July, "Sorry, we could not get agreement, and will not do anything." Let us go back to what happened—I was there, and I know. It was not a case of opening the books in the first year and saying, "Dear, dear, we can't get agreement, let's move on." There was a more honest and detailed attempt to adjust the formula in the first year.
I take seriously what hon. Members on both sides have said—that if we wait for the Local Government Association and everyone to agree, we will never get anywhere. The Government are responsible for making the decision. We have to accept what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said—that is why we were elected, and we will have to carry the can whether we get it right or wrong.
The Government need to know that they have explored, as thoroughly as possible, all the different viewpoints. Any decision they make will, inevitably, not suit some local authorities, parents or schools, but the Government need to be able to say, "We listened and explored the solution that you came up with, but at the end of the day, we could not agree with you."
90WH
I will be honest—within the first year that the Government were in office, it was not possible to come to that conclusion. We could have said that we had opened the books, seen the figures, looked at the options and now we are making the decision. I would have felt ill at ease doing that. We need to go through the necessary consultation process and explore the range of options in a way that makes such a significant decision defensible for a long time, because I do not want to have to go through this again. What we come up with in the Green Paper will have to be a system of funding that serves us well for years to come. Otherwise, is not fair to Members of Parliament and pupils—it is not even fair to Ministers, because more time is spent, research done and work undertaken to get this right than can be imagined.
Where do we go from here? I did not see it in the first year, but one of the advantages of having gained some extra time was referred to in a very interesting point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and by the hon. Member for Newbury. Everyone wants a minimum entitlement, but they want a system that acknowledges different needs in local authority communities. Nobody supports the idea of a minimum entitlement with no added extras. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North threw out, for instances, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions indices of deprivation. That is an interesting idea that I had not thought about particularly before. Perhaps the advantage of having bought ourselves three months is that we do not have to build on a system that was flawed because it looks back to 1990. Perhaps we will be able to do something more radical so that we do not adjust the weightings to the values that dictate the SSAs, but change the way in which we measure minimum entitlement and added benefit on top.
Nobody would expect me to say what is likely to be in the Green Paper. I can simply give assurances that the hon. Members of all parties who have, on this issue, been excellent representatives of their constituents and have spoken vociferously will have their voices heard in Government. I will, as I have on many previous occasions, give an undertaking to feed their views back to the Government and make sure that they are a proper part of the decisions and discussions that we will eventually hold.

Steelworkers (Pensions)
12.30 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: I declare two interests—as I do in any debate on steel. The first is my ownership of 25 shares in Corus, formerly British Steel. The second is a close collaboration with all the steelworkers unions, because steel is the dominant employer in my constituency.
The issue touches some of the poorest members of the community, whose life's work was devoted to making the steel that helped Britain grow during the previous century. It is a story about the age-old struggle between justice and greed. It is an unreported contest between, on the one hand, men and women who felt that a life's honest and honourable work should be sufficient to provide them with a decent retirement and, on the other, the controllers of our nation's financial resources, who have other priorities.
Many pensioners feel that they deserve a better deal—a view that I share for the whole pensioner community. However, in addition to Government, it is time for pension funds to accept their responsibilities. That is not currently happening in the case of retired steelworkers.
Pension funds are so swollen that their size now overshadows modern market economies. They need to be examined properly and made accountable to the men and women whose earnings have contributed to the creation of those new financial behemoths.
The debate is about the most important question in a society in which the rules of the market and the needs of capital are perceived by many to have a higher priority than the decency of human existence and obligations owed by one generation to another. Government must answer the question: who is responsible for the oversight of those huge sums?
According to 1998 figures, UK pension funds currently manage more than £700 billion. The House of Commons Library informs me that, taken with pensions managed by insurance companies, the total amount of pension funds comes to more than £1 trillion. That is more than the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom. Ministers and civil servants manage a total budget of about one third of the sum for which a large number of anonymous, mostly unaccountable, men and women are responsible.
I want to look more closely at the pensions paid to British steelworkers and the use of the pension fund that their past and present labour has created. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister think that the role of the pensions ombudsman should be reconsidered? Do we need to modernise and reform our pension law so that the concept of fairness is added to the fiduciary responsibilities of trustees and managers?
Like Britain's other great industries, our steel industry gave birth to a mixture of pension funds which were amalgamated when the industry was nationalised. When the fund was launched for manual workers in 1973, there were three times as many steelworkers in work—the number was 197,000 in 1975—as pensioners claiming from the fund. There were only 65,000 such pensioners 25 years ago.
The picture has changed. At present, 30,000 steelworkers pay into the fund; 109,000 receive benefits; and 57,000 are waiting for the years to tick to 65—the
92WH
victims of the anti-manufacturing and anti-industry policies of the previous Conservative Government. They are not helped by the current discrepancy between the pound sterling and the euro; or by high electricity prices and other leftovers from the Conservative era.
Over the past 25 years, the British Steel pension fund has grown from being worth £338 million to its current value of nearly £10 billion. There is a different pension fund for British Steel Engineering Steels employees—many of whom are my constituents in South Yorkshire. My remarks will address the main British Steel pension fund, but my general observations also apply to the Engineering Steels pension fund.
The British Steel 1990 pension fund is extremely well managed; it invests wisely and, thanks to the miracle of compound interest and a judicious mixture of bond and equity investments, it has more than adequately maintained its value to meet all its current and future obligations—and then some. With about half its £10 billion in bonds, the income from those Government-guaranteed securities alone is sufficient to meet all current and future demands.
The question remains as to the rest of the money in the fund. As an American senator once said:
If you add a million here and a million there, sooner or later you start talking about reel money.
In the case of the billions in the steelworkers pension funds and the billions in other pension funds, we have sums that are almost unimaginably large—greater than the GDP of most countries. How should those giant sums be used?
At present, all the cards are stacked in favour of the companies. Of course, they discharge their legal and contractual obligations, but thereafter, those billions of pounds are for their benefit as companies, rather than for the benefit of the pensioners or of the communities that gave rise to that source of wealth.
Let us not forget the origin of that colossal wealth. It was created by steelworkers themselves; either directly, through deductions from their pay packet, or via the contribution put in by the companies. However, that contribution was not company money; it reflects value added, research, good management and the hard, dirty and often dangerous work inside the steel plants of Britain over the past decades.
Until privatisation in 1988, the Government provided a generous pension fund contribution of up to 12 per cent. to match the employee's 5 per cent. That enabled the British Steel pension fund to grow more than tenfold during its first 15 years and ensured that the newly privatised British Steel had a pot of gold, courtesy of the British taxpayer and of a compliant Tory Government who stacked the financial cards in favour of their privatised offspring.
Under a dozen years of private ownership, the fund has increased, but only by a little more than twice as much, in contrast to its much faster growth under public control. Why is that? I do not have time to go into the arguments made by those who are expert in tracing the movements of money inside the British Steel pension fund. However, I stress that, at every stage, the company, the pension fund management and the trustees have acted with full legality. They have not tried to duck questions put by the trade unions or by the

93WH
national British Steel pensioners association, whose chairman, Mr. John Batstone, has been most diligent in keeping an eye on the fund and in asking tough questions.
The core problem remains. Under the Conservatives, pension law was so organised that power remained in the hands of the companies, which were able to use that £1 trillion pension fund to bolster their own financial strength, rather than being more generous to pensioners—especially those such as the manual grades in Britain's steel industry, whose enforced early retirement during the great demannings of the 1980s and the steady attrition of the 1990s has often meant that they do not have enough contribution years to secure more than a meagre supplement to the state pension.
There are many examples of major FTSE 100 companies taking what are described as "pension holidays". That means that either the employer or the employees do not pay into the pension fund at all. According to a survey carried out two years ago by the National Association of Pension Funds, more than half of private sector pension funds were taking a contributions holiday. Of course, that is excellent news for a company's cash flow and also for employees. However, the price of such generosity to the firm or to its existing employees is that there is less money—over and above the contractual obligations—to pay the men and women whose previous contributions helped grow the pension funds that can currently be used to oil a firm's financial operations.
The practice may also distort the real financial worth of a company. In the United States, according to The Wall Street Journal on 30 May, the Securities and Exchange Commission is
concerned that the pension income is giving less sophisticated investors a distorted view of some companies' health.
Mr. Frank Roy: My hon. Friend has referred to the manual grades of steelworkers, and he is aware that pensions not only take the type of holiday that he mentioned, but that thousands of steelworkers lost their jobs in the late 1980s and 1990s. They transferred their British Steel pensions to private pensions, and I am a member of that group because I received a manual grade pension after I was made redundant when the Ravenscraig plant closed. My British Steel pension was worth £32,000, but three weeks ago, I was informed that my pension had been mis-sold—the sum concerned is £11,000.
I took the trouble to find out what would happen to my pension, but does my hon. Friend not agree that ex-steelworkers need to be made aware of what is happening and that such cases needed to be cleared up as quickly as possible? Like the people who currently work in the industry, those steelworkers built it up.
Mr. MacShane: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. As I shall say later, I believe that there is enough money in the British Steel pension fund to clear up such anomalies. Steelworkers and the pensioners of this country will never forget the crime committed by the private pensions swindle. They declared their verdict on that on 1 May 1997 and it will take a generation or two before the dishonesty is forgotten.
Thanks to taxpayers' generosity prior to privatisation, the British Steel pension fund has been consistently able to report surpluses in each year since
94WH
1990, when the new scheme was set up. Thus, when British Steel merged last year with the Royal Dutch Hoogovens firm to create Corus, it brought a handsome dowry to the marriage—a pension fund worth close to £10 billion running an actuarial surplus in 1999 of just over £1,009 million.
It is over the disposal of that surplus that great concern has arisen. At the time of the merger last autumn, the rules were suddenly changed for the pension fund and the company cut its contribution from 5 per cent. to just 2 per cent. The union trustees opposed that major reduction in the firm's contribution to the British Steel pension fund, but, as the law presently stands and given the way in which the 1990 British Steel pension scheme was set up, the company decides and the trustees have to bow down before its decision.
Mr. Llew Smith: As my hon. Friend will know, until recent years, at least one steel plant in my community employed 14,000 workers—it now employs 1,000. However, in one way or another, the steel industry still dominates my community. The people who built up the industry repeatedly tell me that they did the work and that the pension fund was set up for them. However, they are not receiving the benefits from the fund that employers, such as Corus, now enjoy. Those employers did not do the work and they did not build up the industry in the way that the people in my constituency did. Surely, that cannot be justified; it is like Robin Hood in reverse. Private steel owners rob the poor to maintain their rich positions in life.
Mr. MacShane: The point of the debate is very much to appeal to Corus to take a more responsible and socially just approach to the moneys in its pension fund. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, those moneys represent the deferred earnings of the workers—the savings appropriated from them. They have the right to be consulted, but the company's management has the power of decision. There was a take-it-or-leave-it order from the company on changing the rules of its pension fund, so will my right hon. Friend the Minister comment on whether the Government will consider making the rules rather more equitable rather than, as at present, so heavily loaded in favour of the company?
The union trustees considered appealing to the pensions ombudsman. However, on the basis of experience and legal precedent, it was not clear that this would be a fruitful approach even if it would have provided a bonanza for lawyers' fees. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of pensions ombudsman needs strengthening so that the trustees of pension funds can have confidence that he will support their case for full examination by an independent body in contested cases of the distribution of pension funds surpluses?
At the same time, British Steel made a one-off payment of about £800 million to shareholders as a sweetener for the merger. I know that, because my cheque for £1.25 arrived in the post. Two thirds of that £800 million went across the Atlantic because, along with many other firms in Britain and Europe, majority institutional share ownership is now in the hands of American pension and mutual funds. The coincidence of this huge payment of £800 million from a company which, thanks to the strong pound, is trading at a loss, taking place when the pension fund was rejigged to

95WH
provide the new firm with a massive injection of year-on-year cash by more than halving its pension contribution has caused outrage among steel communities throughout the country.
I stress again that I am not accusing the company or the British Steel pension scheme of doing anything illegal or improper. Given the large sum in the scheme and the handsome surplus posted regularly, the scheme has been able to make improvements in payments that have benefited all pensioners. However, because something is legal and because some charity has been doled out does not remove the claim that I make on behalf of the 10,000 steelworker pensioners in my constituency and the many more who live in other constituencies that the call of justice and the appeal for generosity should now met in full.
I think of Mr. Horace Bolton in Rotherham, who worked for 44 years in the steel industry. After all that effort, his pension is just £50 a week. In fact, because of the different schemes and rules, that payment comes from two pension fund sources, but his appeals to have his years of service treated as a continuum have fallen on the deaf ears of a pension fund worth £10 billion.
I think of Mrs. Hingley in Brierly Hill, who was a supervisor in the British Steel Cookley stamping works. After 45 years labour, her pension is £22 a week—50p for each year that she worked. I think of Mr. Les Harper of Middlesbrough who after 40 years of continuous service receives £25 a week, and he is 92. Surely a company that can shape remuneration packages of up to £500,000 for its top executives can treat its retired workers with more generosity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I express the hope to the hon. Gentleman that he will refer, if only briefly, to the ombudsman.
Mr. MacShane: I have.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has. Such a reference will make the debate relevant to the Minister.
Mr. MacShane: I asked whether my right hon. Friend the Minister agreed that the role of pensions ombudsman needed strengthening. That is what I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That question and this repetition of it will appear in Hansard tomorrow.
Instead of giving the new company Corus a major cash flow boost and a huge handout to existing shareholders, it would have been possible to reduce both employers' and employees' contributions to 2 per cent. for the next five years and then to review the situation. A £500 lump sum could have gone to all pensioners and to all widows. Those suggestions were put forward by British steel pensioners, but were turned down. They would have made a direct, immediate improvement to the quality of life of scores of thousands of retired steelworkers in Britain. They would have left the fund fully secured and thus approved of by the pensions ombudsman, but would have been a use of the surplus cash to help the many not the few. I appeal to the
96WH
management of Corus, once the current actuarial review is over, to think hard about being more generous to existing pensioners.
Let us not forget that, under the present rules which are supervised by the pensions ombudsman, if the British Steel pension fund were to get into trouble, the active members—today's employees—would have to bail it out. British Steel as a company has put in only 34 per cent. of the contributions of the scheme since it was set up in 1990—the rest coming from employees. Yet all power lies with the management of British Steel, now Corus. This structure is a tribute to ripe old high Thatcherism in which partnership, equal responsibilities and equal rights were all dirty concepts.
I urge Corus, in conjunction with the unions and existing pensioners, to restructure the scheme so that the company and the trustees have an equal say in important decisions. I also urge the scheme to consider using its surplus to support existing steel communities in the UK, which remain the hardest hit in terms of loss of jobs and especially well-paid jobs for men associated with the steel industry. The winding up this summer of the European Coal and Steel Community and its linked funds take away an important source of financial support for constituencies such as mine struggling to come to terms with the end of the coal and steel jobs that once provided the backbone of the economy of South Yorkshire, south Wales, Teesside, Humberside, Lanarkshire and other industrial heartlands.
The steel and other giant pension funds now constitute a central part of the so-called new economy. If properly harnessed, those funds can help to rebuild the communities from which they draw their wealth without jeopardising their prime obligation to meet their pension requirements. Sending remittances to an area where men need new work confuses relief with the need for investment, which can create permanent hopes for a new economy. I do not expect the Minister to provide answers to all those problems, but we need to take a fresh look at the operation of pension funds. They should not only dole out small sums, but help to create new sources of wealth in the communities in which they originate.
12.50 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) does not expect answers to each of his points because, in nine minutes, I cannot do justice to them all. However, I congratulate him on raising the issue and the important role of the pensions ombudsman in the treatment of surpluses in pension fund schemes.
I shall begin by briefly explaining the role of the pensions ombudsman, who can investigate scheme members' complaints about maladministration in the running of their scheme. Those complaints can be against the trustees of the scheme, managers, administrators and the employer. In investigating a complaint, the pensions ombudsman considers whether the actions of the subjects of it, such as the trustees, the employer and scheme administrator, have been in accordance with the scheme rules. Failure to comply with the scheme rules can be considered as maladministration.

97WH
If the ombudsman determines that maladministration has occurred, he can direct that certain action is taken to rectify the situation. The ombudsman can consider complaints about the use of a scheme's surplus. Indeed, we have made an amendment to the rules under which the pensions ombudsman the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which is currently in the other place and which we shall consider again when we debate the Lords amendments to it. That amendment will ensure that the ombudsman's procedures allow him to continue to consider such complaints.
Cases involving surplus may affect the interests of several parties, as my hon. Friend said. Our amendment will allow the pensions ombudsman to link to a case all those whose interests may be affected by the complaint and will give them an opportunity to have their say. Without that strengthening amendment, it would be difficult for the ombudsman to accept such cases. The previous Government were not wholly to blame for the position because the Pensions Act 1995 cleaned up much of the Maxwell scandal. Indeed, it is a tribute to everyone concerned that that Act was passed. It includes requirements on the treatment of scheme surpluses, which I wish had been in force when I was supporting constituents involved in the Lucas pension scheme who were robbed blind on surpluses. I make no apology for that remark.
My hon. Friend talked about pensions holidays and spoke about a firm operating at a loss transferring funds to shareholders, implying that that money came out of the pension fund. I do not know about that. However, before a payment is made from a surplus to the employer, the rules require that several things must be done. First, all current and future pensions in payment must be increased annually in line with the retail prices index up to a maximum of 5 per cent., including pensions accrued in the past. Secondly, the trustees of the scheme must satisfy themselves that the use of the surplus is in the interest of the members. Thirdly, the scheme members must be notified of the trustees' proposals in the manner required by law, which ensures that members' benefit from the surplus and their interests are taken into account.
In schemes in which payment from the pension fund to the company is permitted by the scheme rules, members have a right to challenge the trustees' decision by appealing to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority if they believe that statutory criteria have not been followed. Opra will investigate the case and decide whether to allow the payment. In schemes that do not permit a payment, Opra has the power to modify the scheme rules. The statutory criteria are the same as those for schemes that permit payment, and Opra can decide whether to modify the scheme rules to allow a payment to be made.
The pensions ombudsman is barred from investigating complaints about those requirements for the simple reason that non-compliance is a matter for the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. Opra can investigate non-compliance and sanction the trustees if they do not follow those requirements. The sanction can take the form of a fine of up to £5,000 per trustee or the trustee's removal from the scheme.
98WH
To the best of my knowledge, the pension fund discussed by my hon. Friend has not applied to make a payment. Before such payment can be made, permission must be given. The merger took place last year and, now that it is June 2000, the Department and the regulatory authorities have no knowledge of the scheme or company ever applying for permission to make such payments. As I say, I am not certain about the exact nature of my hon. Friend's allegation.
Mr. MacShane: It is not a question of direct transfer. By cutting the contributions from 5 to 2 per cent., the company's cash flow is so altered that it can use other funds to make a payment to shareholders. That worry has caused outrage among steelworkers.
Mr. Rooker: That may be so. Surpluses are an emotive issue, and, as I made clear, I have experience of that. However, in considering trustees' treatment of a surplus, one must make a distinction between actuarial surplus and statutory surplus.
Actuarial surpluses are identified by the scheme actuary in the course of regular valuations. Statutory surplus, however, is calculated according to a formula prescribed by the Inland Revenue. A scheme is classed as being in statutory surplus when it holds assets in excess of 105 per cent. of its liabilities, calculated on the basis of the Inland Revenue formula. There are many tax reliefs associated with such funds, to which the public make a massive contribution. Indeed, they would not have achieved success without the contribution made by the public by means of tax relief.
It is important that the Inland Revenue should protect the public purse, so it makes certain requirements of the schemes, which are intended to make sure that pension funds do not receive undue tax relief. When the scheme holds funds in excess of 105 per cent. of its liabilities, it must reduce the excess if it is to retain full tax exemption. That can be done in may ways, including employer and employee contribution holidays, increasing the benefits to current and future pensioners, and making a taxable refund to the employer. Such a refund has been made in many cases, but permission must be obtained. Of course, the employer would have to pay 40 per cent. tax on such a transfer.
Regardless of the methods chosen, the plans for the elimination of the surplus must be approved by the Revenue. Occupational pensions are voluntary and companies are not under any legal requirement to run such schemes. I appreciate that surpluses are a contentious issue, as we must consider who owns them. However, under the rules on the minimum funding requirement brought in after 1995, which are currently being reviewed and on which we shall pronounce, no one will lose a pension.
The pension may be insufficient, but that is a matter for the trustees and those who run the scheme. Pensions already obtained in payment or accruals will be protected as a result of the security in managing the surplus. No one will lose out. However, the pension fund not being generous enough to its pensioners or its deferred payers is a matter for the trustees. The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill will make fund members' involvement in trustee boards mandatory. However, that provision is not yet in place.

99WH
I know nothing about the composition of the board of trustees of the fund described by my hon. Friend or about the fund members involved. However, I would be astonished if the trade unions were not heavily involved, given the nature of the industry and the unions' support.
Mr. MacShane: I welcome the Minister's comments, which tilt the balance in favour of trustees representing employees past and present. Will he join me in suggesting that Corus examines its surplus distribution and adopts a more generous approach to the poorly paid pensioners whom I mentioned?
Mr. Rooker: Corus is a blue chip company which, as my hon. Friend made clear, is operating within the law. It is, therefore, incumbent on it and all good employers who want to make a good impression on the communities that they serve, their former pensioners, their deferred pensioners and their existing work force, to make the most advantageous and generous provision for pensions that is possible within the rules. If surpluses are available, that avenue should be explored.

London Stock Exchange
1 pm
Mr. William Cash: The proposed merger of the London stock exchange and the Deutsche Börse raises important concerns about the regulatory and competitive environment of the City of London as a whole, and of United Kingdom public companies in particular. These concerns are, or should be, vital to the Government both as a matter of national interest and, as I shall show, as a matter pertaining to the Government's obligations to the City under the terms of a memorandum of understanding signed in 1997.
The issue should have been debated in the House on a Government motion. However, the Government ran away until they were forced here today. These concerns, which it is my purpose to raise, arise in large measure from the vagaries of the merger terms on offer. First, the London exchange, Europe's premier financial centre, which until now has drawn inward investment from the foremost financial institutions in the world, is under the deal valued the same as an exchange which, in terms of assets managed, is seven times its junior.
Secondly, the loss of London's position as Europe's financial capital would have a negative effect on the City's competitiveness in general, sparking an outflow of financial institutions such as market analysts, investment banks and advisory firms. Thirdly, under the deal, the UK's blue-chip firms will in Frankfurt be subject to financial regulation that is gravely inferior to that which they Presently enjoy under the Financial Services Authority—regulation that in London is underwritten by the memorandum of understanding to which I have referred.
Fourthly, competition between the London and Frankfurt exchanges will be skewed by the presence, at 0.5 per cent., of stamp duty on share dealing in the former. Fifthly, the interests of the Frankfurt exchange are likely to supersede those of London given that its 50 per cent. shareholding in the new entity will be held en bloc, whereas London's 50 per cent. will be divided between its 298 shareholding companies into individual holdings of just 0.17 per cent. each.
These broad concerns are compounded by a host of questions left unanswered from the debate in the House of Lords on 24 May and under the merger terms, including the location and funding of a central counterparty for the new exchange. The matters raised in the House of Lords require answer, and they were not answered by the noble Lord who responded for the Government on that occasion. They must be answered; if they are not answered today, they must be answered soon.
I recognise that modern global companies require immense liquidity in the exchanges on which they list. Companies listing in New York already have access to such liquidity, and I see no reason why European companies should not be put on an equivalent footing. The fact that Europe's share market is overly fragmented does not speak to the question, on whose terms should it be consolidated. As I put it in my letter to The Daily Telegraph of 5 May—I pay tribute to that newspaper for its tenacious investigation of this matter—the question is, who is to call the shots? At first glance, the answer to the question is overwhelmingly self-evident—it should be London.

101WH
The London stock exchange manages 700 per cent. more assets than Frankfurt, its closest rival in Europe, and transacts 100 per cent. more by volume. There are more German banks headquartered in London than there are in Frankfurt and Berlin combined. The City's regulator, the Financial Services Authority, is world renowned for its probity, in contrast to its opaque equivalent in Frankfurt. Indeed, so attractive is the City that the American technology exchange, NASDAQ, chose recently to locate its European operations in London in preference to Frankfurt.
Despite all of these advantages, the London stock exchange is embarked upon a 50:50 merger with the Deutsche Börse in Frankfurt, causing the NASDAQ to reverse its decision to set up in London. Even this so-called merger of equals is far from equitable. It is nothing of the kind. It has all the hallmarks of a politically motivated reverse takeover. What Don Cruickshank, the merged entity's proposed chairman, describes as a 50:50 merger is in fact, owing to the distribution of shares, a 50:0.17 merger. Under the deal, the Deutsche Worse will hold its 50 per cent. of shares en bloc, but the London stock exchange holding will be split evenly between its 298 shareholding firms. It does not take a genius—I am sure that that includes the Minister—to work out that it will take only one London shareholder to vote with the Deutsche Börse, and Frankfurt will carry the day.
We are told by Gavin Casey that that is a temporary anomaly and that Frankfurt's holding will eventually be broken up. However, what assurances do we have? I urge the London stock exchange urgently to provide clarification on that point. A second and no less important defect of the proposed merger concerns shoddy financial oversight in Frankfurt. It is common knowledge that traders there conduct huge block trades in secret and that the company listing rules are complicated, to put it mildly. Even one of the supposed advantages of Frankfurt, its Xetra trading system, has broken down on more occasions than its London equivalent, SETS.
We are told that, under the merger, all high-tech or "new economy" stocks will be traded in Frankfurt, London being left with the blue-chip or "old economy" stock. Yet Mr. Cruickshank and his friends have so far failed even to address the thorny issue of how exactly a high-tech or blue-chip firm will be defined. Many companies defy or straddle such classifications. Where are their shares to be traded? There is also the danger that if blue-chip firms relocate to Frankfurt, many of the advisory and investment banking firms which depend upon them will go there too.
Of further concern is where the central counterparty for the new exchange will be located and how it will be funded. Until recently, the London stock exchange planned to create such a counterparty in collaboration with the London clearing house, yet we have heard nothing from Mr. Cruickshank on where the counterparty for the new exchange might be located. On this issue, too, we must have clarification.
In sum, while the merger is presented as one of equals, its terms are clearly quite advantageous to the smaller Frankfurt exchange. Heaven alone knows what it thinks it is playing at. Little wonder that last month Werner Seifert, the proposed chief executive of the new entity, wrote that
102WH
whilst London is still centre stage, Frankfurt is waiting in the wings, ready to take a lead role.
Yet there is still hope for those who are opposed to the terms of the merger, for there is an obligation for intervention by the Government despite denials to the contrary. A memorandum of understanding between the Bank of England, the Treasury and the FSA, which was agreed in 1997, made it crystal clear that the Treasury has departmental responsibility in relation to exchanges and in maintaining confidence in the UK financial system. The memorandum states that the
Treasury is responsible for the overall institutional structure of regulation, and the legislation which governs it. There are a variety of circumstances where the FSA and the Bank will need to alert the Treasury about possible problems: for example, where a serious problem arises, which could cause wider economic disruption; where there is or could be a need for a support operation; where diplomatic or foreign relations problems might arise; where a problem suggests the need for a change in the law; or where a case is likely to lead to questions to Ministers in Parliament. This list is not exhaustive, and there will be other relevant situations.
The proposed merger of the London and Frankfurt exchanges qualifies under almost all of the terms specified in the memorandum. For example, is not hitching our stock exchange, and so our country, to the crisis-prone euro a problem
which could cause wider economic disruption …?
Would not the merged exchange push for common European oversight and so suggest
the need for a change in the law …?
What about the situation that is
likely to lead to questions to Ministers in Parliament …?
In fact, it did.
I tabled a question, which was answered on 11 May by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. My having tabled a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer requesting him to indicate what representations had been received, and asking him to make a statement on the matter, in a manner that can be described only as contemptuous of Parliament and of the obligations set out in the memorandum of understanding, he declined to make a statement. He left it to a junior Minister to reply, and the response was as follows. I was told that there had been no representations. The answer continued:
The terms of the proposed merger are a matter for the parties involved, subject to their securing the necessary approval of the relevant regulatory and competition authorities.—[Official Report, 11 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 476W.]
That answer is simply outrageous. It is absurd that there have been no representations on the proposed merger. Further, according to the 1997 memorandum of understanding, it is manifestly not just a matter "for the parties involved"; the memorandum makes that clear. The Minister simply cannot get out of it.
I point out merely that Europe's pre-eminent stock exchange can secure better terms than those currently on offer. Olof Stenhammar, chairman of the Swedish stock exchange, summed up the poor terms on offer to London when he expressed
surprise that London was accepting a merger of equals.
He went on to describe the deal, accurately, as having
a top-down approach with bureaucratic and political undertones, favouring institutions at the expense of retail investors.
The whole issue is a disgrace.

103WH
As if the criticisms identified by Mr. Stenhammar were not enough, the authorities in Frankfurt have made it clear that they will seek to extract even better terms for the Deutsche Börse, possibly preventing the new entity from being headquartered solely in London. Any such development, likely as it is, must be resisted at all costs. Indeed, the entire deal should be rejected.
I ask the Minister whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other Cabinet Minister will make a statement on the whole matter to the House of Commons and thereby provide the proper, correct, constitutional and urgent clarification that is needed on the important points that I have raised. It is an outrage that he has not come to the House, or indeed to Westminster Hall today. I call on the City to see sense, to realise its own worth and to vote to reject the deal.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has the permission of the initiator of the debate to participate and has notified both me and the Minister.
1.12 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on securing a debate on an important subject. Subject to the regulatory permissions and whatever Government involvement is required, the stock exchange is a private entity now. It is up to its members to do what they want, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that an unsatisfactory deal is being proposed, which will be voted down by the members in September, with opposition from large and small members.
The Opposition are not against the concept of a pan-European stock exchange, but against the terms of the proposed deal, which seem to smack of a lack of confidence and, indeed, of long-term strategy among the management of the London stock exchange. As my hon. Friend pointed out, London is overwhelmingly the biggest market in terms of companies quoted, turnover and value. It handled some 50 per cent. of international share trading, against the 5 per cent. handled in Germany.
What seems to have happened is that the strength of character of Mr. Seifert has dominated. When mergers occur, they inevitably lead to one party taking over. It is clear that a merger on those terms will lead to a market dominated by his leadership in Frankfurt.
What is wrong with the deal? It does not cut costs. What is crucially needed is a United States-style net settlement system. At present, transaction costs are nearly 10 times as much here and in Frankfurt as they are in the United States. It will create six markets. In addition to blue chip in London, NASDAQ International in Frankfurt and AIM, or the alternative investment markets, there will be a Midcap-middle-sized capital stocks—in London, a Midcap in Frankfurt and German growth stocks on the Neuer market.
Two regulatory authorities will continue. Companies will be subject to the opaque German trading rules and, indeed, to a stock market that is controlled by two or
104WH
three banks in an oligopolistic situation in Germany. A crucial point is that London has the machinery for multi-currency settlement in the CREST arrangements, which Frankfurt does not. That will be crucial for any pan-European stock exchange.
It is clearly unwise for London to surrender to Frankfurt the stocks of the future—the growth stocks. Excellent though the blue chips may be today, they are inevitably "old economy"—companies that will decline in future. Therefore, to do that is to sell out on the future.
There is no evidence that Xetra is any better than the combination of CREST and SETS. The change would cost UK brokers a fortune, raising the issue of who will pay for it. The Fund Managers Association has made it clear that it is a poor deal. It provides no cost reductions and worsens the regulatory situation. It is, if anything, less efficient than the present arrangements. A far better deal can be done It is time that the London stock exchange started to talk to NASDAQ directly. We thought that the Chancellor had arranged that for the exchange.
1.15 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has lost none of his knack of putting his view in a controversial manner. We have had a very good example of that today on an important subject. The proposed merger between the London stock exchange and the Deutsche Börse is clearly an important subject, which has understandably attracted considerable comment since it was announced on 3 May.
The London stock exchange is by any standards a major financial institution and one of the world's leading equity exchanges, as the hon. Gentleman remarked. However, the environment in which the LSE operates is undergoing a period of dramatic change. Technological developments such as electronic trading systems mean that it is—or soon will be—possible to have access to an exchange from virtually anywhere in the world. Allied to the general process of internationalisation of financial services, the result is the breaking down of barriers between national markets.
In Europe there are increasing customer-driven pressures for integration of financial markets. Institutional investors are increasingly looking at the European market in terms of industrial sectors rather than individual countries.
Against that background, it is hardly surprising that there is pressure from market users for consolidation of the exchanges within Europe, and the attractions of creating a single trading platform for European stocks are obvious. In response, the exchanges are coming forward with initiatives for mergers and alliances. The French, Dutch and Belgian exchanges are merging to form the Euronext exchange. Various Scandinavian exchanges are combining. Tradepoint, the UK electronic equities exchange, is in discussion with the Swiss stock exchange. Against that background, it is hardly surprising that the LSE should be pursuing its own merger initiative.
There are good reasons for mergers. Investors and companies both benefit from the creation of broader and deeper equity markets. Companies are able to offer

105WH
their securities to a much greater number of potential investors. Investors have the opportunity to invest in a much wider range of equities. All sides should benefit from the lower trading costs that result.
I should make clear, however, that the terms of the deal to create iX—the international exchange—are a commercial matter for the parties involved, subject, of course, to their obtaining the necessary clearances from the relevant regulatory and competition authorities. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) recognised that point. The Government were not a party to the negotiations.
Mr. Cash: Will the Minister concede—perhaps she is coming to it—that there is an important matter that she is leaving out, namely the memorandum of understanding. It lays down the ground rules and deals with exchanges—I have already made the point. I hope that she will refer to it because it is crucial to recognising the Government's obligations.
Miss Johnson: It is a matter of how the hon. Gentleman has interpreted the MOU. I understand that a merger is not a threat to financial stability. It would be in those terms that there might be some case for pursuing the provisions under the MOU. I make it plain that the Government were not a party to the negotiations.
On the competition aspects of the merger, the merger is below the asset and turnover thresholds that would make it a matter for the Commission. It therefore falls to the national authorities to consider. In the UK, if the proposals for the merger proceed, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make his decision on whether to refer the case to the Competition Commission in the light of the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. It is obviously not for me to comment on a particular case.
On the regulatory issues, which are of considerable interest to hon. Members, the Government made it clear in another place during consideration of amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which some of us find it difficult to leave behind us—the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs laughs—we have no doubt that the provisions of the Bill relating to the recognition of exchanges are adequate to deal with structures such as the proposed iX. Although iX will have operations in both the UK and Germany, its component markets will need to be based in one or other of the countries for regulatory purposes. The markets based in London will fall to the Financial Services Authority to oversee, and those in Germany to the German authorities.
Both the FSA and its German counterparts will need to be satisfied about the regulatory arrangements if the merger is to proceed. They are already working together and considering the practical implications of the proposed merger. Indeed, Howard Davies visited the BA We last week for discussions with his German opposite number.
Much of the detail of the proposed merger is still to be worked out by the exchanges, and therefore the regulatory authorities cannot at this stage say precisely what the regulatory arrangements will be. However, it is worth noting that the merger is not without precedent in
106WH
terms of its implications for regulation. For example, there is already an instance of two separate exchanges with a single owner operating in two countries. The OM Group owns the OM Stockholm exchange, which is regulated by the Swedish regulator. Another subsidiary is OM London exchange, a UK recognised investment exchange regulated by the FSA.
Mr. Cash: Does the Minister recognise that legislation was required with respect to Lloyd's of London, for example? That was a highly contentious matter and has been referred to in subsequent public legislation. The reasons are those that I gave in relation to the memorandum of understanding. These are issues of seminal importance to the future of the City of London. Lloyd's of London was a good example. I ought to declare an interest, as I was involved in advising on the matter as a lawyer, before I entered Parliament. When one is dealing with the centre of gravity in stock exchanges, that must be dealt with properly, not through private deals, as is the case at present.
Miss Johnson: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
The FSA and its Swedish counterpart have their separate roles in the case that I was describing, and the arrangements work satisfactorily. There is a clear parallel between that and the present case.
As regards iX, the pan-European blue-chip market is expected to be run as part of a recognised investment exchange in the UK, and will therefore be regulated by the FSA. The FSA will also continue to supervise the London market for UK smaller and medium-sized companies and AIM. The derivatives market and the pan-European market for growth companies will be run from Germany and will be regulated by the German financial services authorities.
Details of the listing and admission to trading standards for the iX markets have not yet been announced. However, the stock exchange has made it clear that companies will not be required to give up their home market listings in order to be admitted to trading on the new iX pan-European markets. German companies listed in Germany will be traded on iX's pan-European markets, along with UK listed companies. This will not be a unique situation. Tradepoint intends to introduce pan-European trading in the near future and a similar situation will pertain there. To date, Tradepoint's plans have not given rise to any insurmountable problems for the FSA.
The fact that the shares of UK and German companies will be traded on the same market does not necessarily mean that investors will automatically assume that the same listing regime applies. It is already the case that foreign companies that are traded on the London stock exchange are not required to comply with all the provisions of the UK listing rules.
The iX will consider what standards it wishes to impose on companies trading on its markets—for example, in terms of disclosure requirements—in addition to those required by the company's domestic listing authority. iX will be a commercial operation and will obviously have to take into account the wishes of its users, and the companies quoted on the exchange will need to consider the standards that investors expect.

107WH
The arrangements for companies transferring between the various components of iX have yet to be settled, but I understand that the intention is that to be included in the new blue-chip index, a company would need to be traded on the London blue-chip exchange.
With regard to company law requirements, UK-registered companies must follow the requirements of UK company law, regardless of where they are quoted and traded. Again, it is worth noting that the customers of exchanges take the standards of regulation into account when deciding where to do business. Companies will therefore have to take account of what the market wants, as well as the legal requirements to which they are subject. That has been one of the attractions of being based in London, as the hon. Member for Stone accepted.
The merger has raised other issues, including the issue of trading in different currencies, as we heard. The stock exchange has clarified its position on that in evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury on 17 May, and elsewhere. The stock exchange's press release on the same day stated:
The new exchange will need to offer trading in a company's shares in the currency which best meets the needs of investors and other users of the market. In the event that the primary currency of trading was not sterling for a UK company, the Exchange would ensure that sterling prices were still available for private investors, newspapers, indices etc.
As for the implications for the UK's entry into the euro, the Government's position is unchanged. It remains as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997—a statement with which I am sure the hon. Member for Stone is familiar. The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on economic and monetary union is whether the economic case for the UK to join is clear and unambiguous.
In conclusion, a number of questions raised by the merger proposals cannot be answered definitively at this stage. The London stock exchange will issue its information memorandum in July, which will set out in detail the terms of the merger. As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs commented, it will then be for members of the exchanges to judge the merits of the proposed merger, and for the regulatory authorities to satisfy themselves about the arrangements for the merger.
Mr. Cash: May I make a brief reply?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has had his say and made his interventions, the Minister has replied, and the debate comes to an end. We move on to the next subject a few minutes early.

Domestic Violence
1.27 pm
Ms Margaret Moran: I begin by quoting from survivors of domestic violence. A child who was involved in domestic violence said:
My worst moments were when my dad said he was going the throw the baby out of the window, and when he said he was going to cut my mum's ears off and poke her eyes out.
Those are the words of a child terrorised by domestic violence.
A parent said:
After he was released from prison for stabbing me, he saw my daughter at the probation office under supervision. After a while they persuaded me to let him have her on his own. Things went OK for a long while but when she was eleven, she became very depressed and unhappy and tried to get out of seeing him. It turned out he had started hitting her on contact visits.
Another parent reported:
On every occasion he came to the house he would force his way in. He continued to abuse me physically and verbally in front of the kids. I had to call the police to remove him after contact visits, and on several occasions he raped me. I still belonged to him, or so he thought. The thought of him coming to collect the children from the house terrifies me. At the moment his parents collect and bring back the children, but from May the court has ordered that he can come to the house. Once again I will be unsafe and at risk from this person.
All those are the words of survivors of domestic violence, as expressed in a recent online consultation initiated by the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence. That e-consultation, Women Speak, links survivors of domestic violence with parliamentarians in order better to inform our policy, legislation and practice on the subject.
Ms Debra Shipley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in her presentation. I record my great respect for her work on violence in the home, in particular the effect on children. Does she agree that the online consultation, Women Speak, was a huge eye-opener for all of us who were involved? I promoted the Protection of Children Act 1999 with the help of my hon. Friend and I thought that I knew a lot about violence against children, but the direct information that came over was appalling. It is extremely important that we have direct contact with survivors, so that we can learn how to tackle the issue.
Ms Moran: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) for that important intervention, which emphasised that we heard the powerful voices of women who have experienced domestic violence and its impact on their children. In a month, more than 1,000 contributions from throughout the country and almost every conceivable community were made to the online consultation. It highlighted subjects on which policy is not being implemented, and gaps in legislation. The debate results from the voices that we heard. I hope that we shall listen to them carefully because it is almost unique to hear directly the full and frank testimony of survivors in the circumstances that we are considering.
The issue that emerged from the consultation cried out for action. The survivors called for an end to the courts almost automatically granting a violent parent

109WH
access to children through child contact orders. We must heed those calls and take action to protect women and children who are at further risk of violence and abuse. More than 90 per cent. of contributions from survivors that referred to child contact raised fears that they and their children were at continued risk of violence or abuse. That is a powerful statement, which we should heed. Women and children who have fled violence, ostensibly to a place of safety, continue to be subject to violence and abuse. There is evidence of women even being murdered as a result of child contact orders.
Changes to the Children Act 1989 are urgently needed. Neither the Act nor the guidance refer to domestic violence. The Act does not require the court to consider the safety of the parent or any other children in the family. The measure, which was intended to protect children, is generally good. Yet it fails to protect the children who need most protection—those who have experienced domestic violence. Consequently, judges almost always grant child contact orders as being in the children's best long-term interests, even if a parent is known to be violent within the family.
Research evidence shows that the courts do not recognise that women are at greatest risk of fatality after separation, and that when there is violence in the family, there is a higher than average likelihood of violence towards, or abuse of, children. The case of Georgina McCarthy, who was murdered almost two years ago today, illustrates the problem. Every agency tried to protect her, but she was murdered and her child was abducted as a result of a child contact order by the courts.
In 1999, a survey of 130 survivors found that 76 per cent. of 148 children ordered by courts to have contact were said to have been abused by the violent parent. Research by Hughes et al in 1989 showed that child abuse and woman abuse occurred together in 40 to 60 per cent. of cases.
Eleanor's ex-husband broke into her house in 1995 and subjected her to five hours of violence. While he was in prison, her daughter, aged four, revealed that her father had sexually abused her. That was confirmed by medical evidence and contact was stopped. However, in 1997, the court decided that there was insufficient evidence of sexual abuse by the father and restored supervised contact. The effect on the child was devastating. Contact was stopped again and social services decided to prosecute the father. The Crown Prosecution Service dropped the charges because it did not wish to put the child in the witness box. A judge ordered supervised contact in a family centre. Eleanor appealed because none of the local contact centres provide supervision. Despite that, she has received a notice, arid will be sent to prison if she does not comply with the order.
Contact is refused in fewer than 2 per cent. of child contact cases. In 1997–98, contact was granted in almost 33,000 out of 36,000 cases. That figure is an underestimate because many women are advised by solicitors that there is no point in contesting a contact order and that it is in their best interests to agree informally to contact. For example, solicitors persuaded Sarah Heatley, who was worried by her husband's violent behaviour, to agree to contact without a court hearing. Her two children were murdered during a child contact visit.
110WH
For a woman and her children, the apparent safety of a hideout or women's refuge is illusory because, in a few weeks, she is likely to receive a summons that requires her to respond to her ex-partner's application for contact with the child. The nightmare begins again.
Violent partners frequently use contact orders to track down and harass the fleeing partner. A child's address is often disclosed accidentally by order of the court. There are examples of some courts giving out the addresses of refuges, thus endangering many women and children. By applying for seek-and-find orders, men can require the police, social services or the Department of Social Security to disclose a child's address to the court. Those orders were never intended for that purpose. Even if the address is kept secret, it is easy for the violent parent to locate the child and the abused woman through the source of the child contact order and the location of the court in which the hearing will be held. Pity the five-year-old who thought she could protect her mum by telling her father that they lived in Bedding rather than Reading; imagine the intolerable pressure on a child so young and desperate.
Families who flee violence are more vulnerable to being tracked down by their abusers because the courts almost invariably issue child contact orders. They have been used as a method of harassing families. A writer from Kent told us that her ex-husband's consistent attempts to find her through repeated court orders to obtain child contact over five years destroyed her life and the lives of her children. Contact was eventually prevented by a sharp-eyed community psychiatric nurse, who faxed the court a damning report on the schizophrenia of the violent ex-partner. Otherwise, the mother would have faced imprisonment if she had prevented child contact. How many other families' lives have been destroyed? How many children's formative years have been lived in fear and uncertainty because of the contact orders?
The Department of Health has accepted the impact of domestic violence and the strong link between it and child abuse. That is reflected in the Department's training pack, "Making an Impact", which is intended for professionals who work with children. Sadly, the message is not getting through to some people, even when there is every reason to believe that the child has been abused.
It is clear that many judges are unaware, when they issue child contact orders, that supervised contact becomes unsupervised in six months. Only about 1 per cent. of contact centres offer supervised contact. Even if they were safe, many are run by volunteers. Excellent though volunteers are, many are untrained and cannot offer the safety and security that women who have been abused and children need. The centres urgently need wholly safe environments and well-trained staff. Child counselling should also be provided. Sadly, such provision is lacking and underfunded. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor's Department could examine that with colleagues in other Departments, for the safety of the women and children involved.
Abido Choudhry fled to a refuge after years of violence. Her husband was granted supervised contact with the three children. After six months, those contacts became unsupervised. The oldest child complained to social services of their father's mistreatment during contact, but the court ordered overnight stays. As a

111WH
result, two of the children were abducted, are now thought to be in Pakistan and are unlikely ever to see their mother again.
Women and children should not be put in such danger by our courts. Those regrettable incidents are not isolated. They were entirely predictable and could have been prevented if we had adequate legislation and court procedures to deal with domestic violence.
The Government's consultation paper, "Contact between children and violent parents", which outlines good practice guidelines, is welcome and may lead to better court procedures. They are urgently needed, but they are not mandatory. That is why we need to change the Children Act 1989. Such a change has been made in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in many other countries. It is perverse and dangerous that such changes should be delayed here. We are, in effect, condoning de facto court-approved child abuse.
The law is preventing the police, social workers and child protection agencies from doing their job of protecting the most vulnerable. The case of Georgina McCarthy—murdered by her ex-husband, despite all the attempts of every agency—had a tragic inevitability, and such cases may happen again, perhaps tomorrow.
The recent consultation by the Lord Chancellor's Department on the issue, undertaken by the advisory board on family law's Children Act sub-committee, is also welcome. It proposes guidelines to be followed in cases where domestic violence is alleged, but many of the agencies believe that legislation is still needed. Those agencies include Women's Aid, which is to be congratulated on all its work on the issue, and a wide range of women's and children's organisations under the Best Interests coalition. I understand that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is also involved and is due to start a campaign on the issue. Those bodies are supported by the powerful voice of the women—the survivors—whom we heard in the all-party online consultation.
If we are to introduce guidelines, as is proposed, what will be the mechanism for monitoring their impact? The sad fact is that, at the moment, little or nothing is done by the Government to monitor the impact of the Children Act in cases of domestic violence. Research has been done by academics on a small scale and by Women's Aid. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will liaise with her colleagues in other Departments to ensure that we track child contact outcomes where domestic violence is an issue. Sadly, my parliamentary questions on the subject have elicited the fact that social services reports, undertaken as part of part VIII reviews under the Children Act, are not collected, tracked or monitored, so information about the impact of child contact orders on domestic violence is not collected systematically.
I ask the Government to find out precisely how many children have been killed in recent years by parents known to be violent before and after contact visits. That information is contained in the part VIII reviews, and we need to study and learn from it if we are serious about tackling the problem. It could also be used to develop detailed risk assessments before contact orders are granted.
112WH
The domestic violence intervention project is piloting such a scheme, which crucially includes the women's views about the risks involved in granting access to children, but, sadly, no funding is available to evaluate it properly. That needs to be considered urgently. Vital evidence collected by police and social services when they advise women to leave their homes for their own safety should be provided in writing and the abused parent should be able to use it to seek a court order under section 91(14) of the Children Act, thus requiring the violent parent to seek leave from the court before applying for a contact order. That procedure is little used at present, but the relevant departments could instigate it relatively speedily.
The Department of Health urgently needs to undertake research, perhaps in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's Department, on children's experiences of different levels of contact where there is a history of violence in the family, including the impact on children's health and development. In that way, we will achieve a sounder basis on which to develop policy to prevent further tragic cases, such as those which I have described.
Finally, but not least, we need adequate funding for refuge services and for counselling children. All of that adds up to an important package that could help to protect our children. However, it is important that we review the need to legislate and to amend the Children Act. The proposals to change future contact involving unmarried parents might be welcome in principle. However, as the Children Act stands, they could also be unwelcome because they could include unmarried parents, who might be involved in even greater incidence of child contact in the circumstances that I have described.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to raise an issue that, among all the powerful contributions to the all-party group's online consultation with the survivors of domestic violence, is perhaps the most amazing and most appalling. We have heard the powerful voices of the women survivors and their continuing experiences. They fear for their children when child contact orders are issued if there is violence in the family. I hope that the power of the survivors' voices will help to persuade the Government that urgent action needs to be taken to amend the law and protect those women and children.
1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Although we are debating a serious issue this afternoon, it is a pleasure to be under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to discuss it so constructively. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) for the way in which she has presented her case. She has described in the most graphic terms exactly the difficulties faced by the survivors of domestic violence, and brought their cases to light. This is a rare opportunity to discuss such issues, especially those involving child contact orders and concerns about domestic violence.
I acknowledge the good work that my hon. Friend has done as chair of the all-party group on domestic violence. I am also glad to acknowledge and put on record her work in putting forward to the Prime Minister recently a petition that was signed by more

113WH
than 5,000 people and presented to mark the second anniversary of the murder of Georgina McCarthy, whom she has mentioned. I have discussed that serious and appalling case with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) who visited me with representatives of Women's Aid. Georgina was tracked down and murdered by her ex-husband, as my hon. Friend has said. Her case is a warning to us all that we cannot afford to be complacent. As my hon. Friend's petition points out, Georgina's case is not an isolated example.
In 1998, 75 women were killed by a current or former spouse, cohabitant or lover—more than one a week. However, the problem is not simply one of male violence. It is only fair to say that, in the same year, 37 men were killed by a current or former spouse, cohabitant or lover. To complete that gloomy roll of statistics, in 1998–99, 69 children were killed by a parent—unfortunately, the statistics do not capture whether by their mothers or fathers.
Violence between spouses, or between parents and children, does not always lead to murder, manslaughter or infanticide; but domestic violence is a serious problem, which we take seriously. I therefore welcome the opportunity to explain what is going on, and what the Government are doing. About six months ago, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched the zero-tolerance campaign in Liverpool, and it has proved very successful. Although today we are focusing on court decisions and court contact orders, the Government are involved in many other matters.
As my hon. Friend's petition makes clear, there is a significant fear that contact orders are sometimes made inappropriately, and, in particular, that the courts do not always take proper account of allegations of domestic violence. That is a valid concern, as both the judiciary and the Government recognise; but it relates to a difficult area, in which no solution will please everyone.
We can all agree that children and women—and, for that matter, men—ought to be protected from violent parents or former partners. We also know that, other things being equal, it is in the interests of children to maintain contact with both their parents. We know that, when contact is appropriate and is maintained, nonresident parents are more likely to pay maintenance for their children. Parents, too, have a right to their family life, unless positive evidence has shown to the satisfaction of the courts that that would put their children at risk of harm.
We could not agree to create a system in which any parent—it could be a father, as well as a mother—could automatically deny the other parent any contact with their children simply by making an unsubstantiated, and possibly unfounded, allegation of abuse. We must recognise that that could sometimes be used as a device to exclude parents from contact, or to delay that contact. We must also recognise that some blameless parents—most often fathers—have immense difficulty in enforcing contact orders that have been made in their favour, and that the system of enforcement, which is largely ineffective in these cases, lets such parents down.
I am glad to say that the Children Act sub-committee of the Lord Chancellor's advisory board on family law, to which my hon. Friend referred, has taken on these knotty problems. Last year, the sub-committee—which
114WH
is chaired by Mr. Justice Wall—published a consultation paper on contact with violent parents, which my hon. Friend also mentioned. Around Easter, the sub-committee reported the results of its consultation to the Lord Chancellor, and made its final recommendations. The report has been published. Mr. Justice Wall and his sub-committee will embark on a similar exercise in relation to the enforcement of contact orders.
The report on domestic violence and child contact concluded that legislation was not necessary—a view supported by most respondents—but that there should be guidelines for the talks. The draft guidelines are several pages long, and I shall not quote from them fully, but they include the following main points.
Wherever possible, the court should make findings of fact as to whether allegations of violence are true, and as to the effect of the violence on the child and the resident parent. When allegations are found to be true, the court should consider the harm that the child has suffered and the harm that the child is at risk of suffering, and should make an order for contact only if it is satisfied that the safety of the resident parent and that of the child can be secured before, during and after contact.
When the court has made findings of violence but nevertheless considers that contact is in the best interests of the child, it should consider what additional directions may be necessary to ensure that the order is implemented safely. It should also consider whether to make a non-molestation order under part IV of the Family Law Act 1996. The court should always explain how its findings on the issue of domestic violence have affected its decision. In particular, when it has ordered that there should be contact despite having found that domestic violence has taken place, the court should explain its view that contact is in the best interests of the child.
The sub-committee recommended that the guidelines should be brought into force through a practice direction to be made by the Lord Chancellor and the president of the family division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. However, at the time when the sub-committee was finishing its report, four appeals raising these issues were heard by the Court of Appeal. Judgment has been reserved on those cases. The Lord Chancellor has agreed that the sub-committee's draft report should be made available to the Court of Appeal. We look forward to its judgment, and to finding out whether it lays down any guidelines as a result. The Lord Chancellor has agreed with Dame Elizabeth that, once a judgment has been made, they will consider whether a practice direction to the judiciary would be helpful, and what further action may be necessary.
In its consultation paper, the sub-committee compared the different approaches to domestic violence and child contact in Australia, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. Some people would like the law to be amended so that, like the New Zealand legislation, it included a presumption against unsupervised contact when domestic violence has taken place. It is worth emphasising that that statutory presumption is a presumption against unsupervised contact, not a presumption against contact altogether.

115WH
As I said, the suggestion was canvassed in the subcommittee's consultation. Most respondents agreed that legislation was not necessary, and that sufficient safeguards could be introduced by way of guidelines. The Government accept that view.
Ms Moran: I welcome the sub-committee's findings. The issue, obviously, is whether the guidance will be interpreted differently in different parts of the country—a disparity that would be resolved by some change to the Children Act, but not necessarily by the Australian system. May I press my hon. Friend on the question of monitoring? Might it be possible to consider legislation if the effects of the guidance are not the effects that were intended?
Jane Kennedy: I hope that what I will say shortly will reassure my hon. Friend.
As recently as yesterday, officials in my Department who are responsible for the development of family policy and the effect of the Children Act met staff who are responsible for the administration of the courts to discuss the collection of more information about domestic violence in Children Act cases. It is a live issue in the Department, and one that we are pursuing.
We would be more persuaded that legislation was required if it were the case—as my hon. Friend's petition says—that the courts operate an overriding principle that absent parents should be awarded contact with
116WH
their children, and that that principle does not take account of cases in which a parent and children are in danger of experiencing violence. That is not correct. There is no overriding principle that contact should be maintained with an absent or non-resident parent. Section 1 of the Children Act says that the paramount consideration that the courts shall apply in determining any question with respect to the upbringing of a child is the welfare of that child. When considering whether to make a contact order, the courts must also have regard to the so-called welfare checklist, which includes such factors as the child's wishes and feelings, the likely effect on the child of any change in his or her circumstances, and any harm that he or she has suffered or is at risk of suffering.
Although we began the debate early, I realise that we are rapidly running out of time. I would have loved to make many more points; perhaps I can make them in a letter to my hon. Friend.
This is not the end of the story. The Georgina McCarthy case raised several questions about the way in which cases are currently handled, and the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office are considering them. There is much work for the Government to do—much work that they are committed to doing. The subject is critically important, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the profile of that crucial work.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre Agency
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre Agency for the financial year 2000–01. [125247]

  Mr. Spellar
  The role of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre is to train the Armed Forces and other Intelligence agencies in intelligence and security disciplines and conduct after capture; to maintain an operational capability; and to contribute to effective and timely advice to the Armed Forces on appropriate intelligence and security matters. The Key Targets for the Agency for the 12 months from April 2000 are:Key Target 1:
  To satisfy 100 per cent. of operational taskings required by the Department to the standard specified by the tasking authority.
  Key Target 2:
  To deliver at least 90 per cent. of a training programme endorsed by the Defence Intelligence Training Policy Group within agreed resources.
  Key Target 3:
  To meet a 100 per cent. standard of quality for all training courses where there is a validated statement of customer training requirement, and a Systems Approach to Training (SAT) mechanism for measuring quality.
  Key Target 4:
  To reduce the real terms cost of delivering the average training place made available by the DISC by 2 per cent. in Financial Year 2000–01.

  Defence Procurement Agency
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Procurement Agency for the financial year 2000–01. [125248]

  Dr. Moonie
  Five Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency for the Financial Year 2000–01. The first three Key Targets apply to projects covered by the Major Projects Report which have passed their Main Gate approval, and prior to their In-Service Date. The Key Targets are:Key Target 1:
  Predicted achievement of customers' core requirements for projects: 91 per cent.
  Key Target 2:
  Average cumulative slippage of In-Service Dates at 31 March 2001: not to exceed 20.9 months.
  Key Target 3:
  Average cumulative cost variation at 31 March 2001: not to exceed 4.9 per cent.
  238W
  Key Target 4:
  Customer Satisfaction Rating: 65 per cent.
  Key Target 5:
  While continuing to meet the demands of the procurement programme, reduce the operating costs of the DPA in relation to the 1997–98 costs of the Procurement Executive by: 19 per cent.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the past three months UK military or diplomatic personnel have been confronted in Sierra Leone by persons purporting to be United Nations personnel but who were not; if he will give details of such instances where United Nations insignia or colours were being worn; and if any such incidents involved the discharge of firearms. [124837]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are given to United Kingdom service personnel when they are required to communicate or collaborate with soldiers of the Sierra Leone Army whom they suspect are below 18 years of age; if those instructions provide specifically for cases where the child soldier is armed; and if he will make a statement. [124832]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is the policy of the Government of Sierra Leone not to employ children under 18 in the Sierra Leone Armed Forces. Instructions were issued recently by President Kabbah that anyone under 18 currently serving in those forces should be disarmed and demobilised.

  Should UK personnel come into contact with any suspected child combatant in the course of their duties, they are instructed to inform the most senior Sierra Leonean Army Commander on the scene and draw his attention to the Government of Sierra Leone's stated policy. This instruction applies whether the suspected child combatant is armed or not.

  Precision Bombing
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what options are being considered by his Department to ensure aircraft are able to bomb with precision in all weather conditions; when a decision will be announced on the preferred option; and if he will make a statement. [124222]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 7 June 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about what options are being considered by his Department to ensure aircraft are able to bomb with precision in all weather conditions and when a decision will be announced on a preferred option. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The Ministry of Defence is considering procuring Precision Guided Munitions to improve the accuracy with which the RAF can deliver free fall bombs in all weather conditions. A Request For Information was sent to industry and seven responses were received.

  239W
  These propose a variety of technological solutions including the use of Inertial Navigation Systems augmented by information from Global Positioning System equipment.
  An Integrated Project Team has formed within the Defence Procurement Agency to conduct technical and commercial assessments of the solutions available. A decision announcing the preferred option is expected in mid 2002.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Specialist Operations
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary on specialist operations. [125250]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have today placed in the Library a note of the recommendations from the report, together with responses by the Commissioners and comments by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his capacity as police authority for the Metropolitan Police Service. The Metropolitan Police have accepted all 12 recommendations in the report. From 3 July, it will be the responsibility of the new Metropolitan Police Authority to monitor progress on implementation of the recommendations.

  Police Costs
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the average cost per police officer for each police force in England in the last financial year. [124400]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The average estimated net expenditure per police officer for 1999–2000 is set out in the table. The figures include pay and all other revenue expenditure.

  £000

  Police force

  Expenditure per police officer

  Avon and Somerset

  58.08

  Bedfordshire

  60.29

  Cambridgeshire

  57.93

  Cheshire

  54.11

  City of London

  77.47

  Cleveland

  61.00

  Cumbria

  57.20

  Derbyshire

  60.78

  Devon and Cornwall

  60.55

  Dorset

  60.13

  Durham

  51.67

  Essex

  58.03

  Gloucestershire

  57.33

  Greater Manchester

  56.58

  Hampshire

  56.42

  Hertfordshire

  58.06

  Humberside

  57.04

  Kent

  57.34

  Lancashire

  55.92

  Leicestershire

  53.14

  Lincolnshire

  61.43

  Merseyside

  57.39

  Metropolitan Police

  70.87

  Norfolk

  62.05

  Northamptonshire

  61.62

  North Yorkshire

  58.45

  Northumbria

  55.63

  Nottinghamshire

  58.04

  240W

  £000

  Police force

  Expenditure per police officer

  South Yorkshire

  54.07

  Staffordshire

  56.50

  Suffolk

  61.34

  Surrey

  61.47

  Sussex

  53.80

  Thames Valley

  61.98

  Warwickshire

  60.78

  West Mercia

  58.27

  West Midlands

  52.00

  West Yorkshire

  58.69

  Wiltshire

  60.46

  Note:

  Figures derived from net revenue estimates and projected average budgeted strengths for 1999–2000

  Source:

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Statistics (Estimates) for 1999–2000

  Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 492W, concerning contracts, if he will list the companies concerned; and whether these contracts were subject to a competitive tendering process. [124814]

  Mr. Straw
  Further to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 492W, the named companies, and tender processes undertaken are given in the table.

  Year

  Name of consultants(s)

  Tender action

  May 1997 to March 1998

  NM Rothchild and Son Ltd.

  Competitive

  April 1998 to March 1999

  PA Consulting

  Competitive

  April 1999 to date

  Brian Farrington

  Competitive

  April 1999 to date

  MMM Consultancy Group Ltd.

  Competitive

  Mike Tyson
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if Steve Fitch has applied to enter the UK with Mike Tyson; [124389]

  (2) if he will list the names of the personnel seeking to enter the UK with Mike Tyson as part of his support team; [124388]

  (3) what checks are being made on personnel seeking to enter the UK with Mike Tyson as part of his support team with regard to establishing previous convictions for serious offences. [124387]

  Mr. Straw
  We do not at present know who will be applying for entry to the United Kingdom as part of Mike Tyson's support team. But the question of whether entry may be granted to those accompanying him will be considered by the Immigration Officer on arrival in the normal way.

  It would be open to Immigration Officers to question them about any relevant matters, including their criminal convictions. However, they are likely to do so only if there is reason to believe that any of them has a relevant conviction. This is to ensure consistency with existing

  241W
  practice. Proposals in our consultation paper would introduce the requirement for all non-European Union passengers to declare convictions resulting in imprisonment. It would be premature to implement those proposals while the consultation process is still ongoing.

  In the case of Steve Fitch, we are aware that he has relevant convictions. In January, Mr. Fitch was granted entry for an extremely limited period, and he observed the conditions imposed on his stay. If he is part of Mr. Tyson's entourage on this occasion, his application for entry will be considered separately in accordance with the Rules.

  Community Penalties
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the final report on the Norfolk and Greater Manchester pilot schemes in community penalties for fine defaulters and persistent petty offending; and what proposals he has to extend these schemes to other parts of the country. [124683]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 provides courts with additional sentencing options for dealing with fine defaulters, persistent petty offenders and others. The provisions were piloted in Norfolk and Greater Manchester and the final report evaluating the trials was published as a Home Office Occasional Paper on 29 February this year. A decision will be taken in due course on whether to bring these measures into effect throughout England and Wales.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to restrict the rights of fans to travel abroad to football matches in cases where they have been identified as being involved in incidents of hooliganism but have not been successfully prosecuted. [123717]

  Mr. Straw
  Only convicted football hooligans who are subject to international banning orders can be prevented from leaving the United Kingdom. The Dutch and Belgian authorities have extensive powers to refuse entry to any individual or group who they consider may pose a risk to public order. This includes people subject to domestic bans. The National Criminal Intelligence Service has provided their Dutch and Belgian counterparts with details of the 506 people currently subject to football banning orders and another 500 or so names of suspected hooligans have also been passed on. Police will be monitoring all England supporters at every United Kingdom exit point throughout the period of the tournament and the information gathered will be shared with the Dutch, Belgian and French police teams and United Kingdom police operating in these countries.

  I have placed in the Library a report prepared by the Euro 2000 Co-ordinating Group on measures which have been taken in preparation for the tournament.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Dioxin Emissions
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the five largest producers of dioxin emissions in the UK. [123484]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]Estimates of dioxin emissions from those industrial processes that are regulated by the Environment Agency are published in the Pollution Inventory on the Agency's website. The latest data published for 1998 list the top five as follows:

  Company

  Dioxins emission to air Grams of toxic equivalents (1-TEQ) (per year)

  Corus (formerly British Steel), Llanwem Works

  13

  Corus (formerly British Steel), Port Talbot Works

  10

  Corus (formerly British Steel), Brigg Road

  9

  Calder Industrial Materials Ltd.

  8

  Allied Steel and Wire Ltd., Tremorfa Works

  7

  The Environment Agency are working with those industries to identify ways to reduce their emissions.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what non-departmental technical advice he has sought, and what action he will take in respect of the farm-scale evaluation of GM herbicide-tolerant crops pending his review of separation distances between the crops. [123757]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]When the separation distances relate to risks to human health or the environment, for example for small-scale experimental releases. I seek non-departmental technical advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, chaired by Professor Alan Gray. These distances are kept continually under review.

  When the separation distances are for agronomic or commercial reasons, for example to protect crop integrity, which is the case for the farm-scale evaluations, they are a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who consult appropriate bodies representing, for example, organic farmers and honey producers.

  I am seeking further meetings between the Soil Association and SCIMAC (the body representing agricultural industries involved in the farm-scale evaluations) to examine case-by-case criteria for minimum separation distances for the farm-scale evaluations.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what GM crop trials are being conducted within Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [124473]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]There are currently no GM crop trials authorised under Part B of Directive 90/220 within Shrewsbury and Atcham. There are trials taking place in Shropshire near Ash Parva,
  243W
  Beckbury, Eyton and Prees Heath. Further details of these trials are available on the Public Register held in the Department.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date his Department was informed(a) by telephone, (b) by e-mail and (c) in writing by Advanta Seeds UK that a batch of Hyola oilseed rape seed had been found to be contaminated with GM oilseed rape seed. [124322]

  Mr. Meacher
  Officials from my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were first informed of the contamination when they met with representatives from Advanta on 17 April. At that meeting, Advanta informed them that some Hyola oilseed rape in Germany had been found to be contaminated with GM oilseed rape. Since then officials were in regular contact with Advanta to establish the facts of the case and in particular to determine which GM variety was involved and the extent to which the contamination extended to seeds in the UK.

  Roadside Memorials
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures exist for the erection of roadside memorials to commemorate the lives of those killed in accidents; and if he will make a statement. [123874]

  Mr. Hill
  Although Britain has a good road safety record there are still far too many people killed and injured in road traffic accidents. It is for local highway authorities to ensure that any roadside memorials to commemorate the lives of those killed in accidents comply with the provisions of the various Highways Acts and Road Traffic Acts and do not themselves become a road safety hazard either through obstruction of the highway or a distraction to road users.

  New Millennium Village
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to use solar voltaics and small-scale wind power as part of the sustainable energy strategy at the New Millennium Village in Greenwich. [124046]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In winning the competition to select a developer for the Millennium Village at Greenwich, the consortium now known as Greenwich Millennium Village Ltd. proposed to include energy from both wind and solar sources. It is for the developers to decide how to incorporate such features, but I am keen that opportunities in this area should be fully explored. Photovoltaic cells and solar panels are both being considered, and the position in respect of wind power is being reviewed.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations were held with(a) urban sociologists and (b) anthropologists on assessing ways to optimise social cohesion in the New Millennium Village in Greenwich. [124047]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  No consultations were held with professional anthropologists or urban sociologists. However, social cohesion is a key objective of the 244W
  Millennium Village, and is being pursued through its design, through the provision of affordable housing, education and health facilities, along with other community facilities, and through physical and other linkages with existing communities.

  Cap de la Hague (Radioactive Gases)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the concentrations of radioactive gases detectable above East Sussex which can be identified as having originated from Cap de la Hague. [124236]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, the European Commission must be satisfied that no contamination of another member state will result before any routine releases of radioactivity can be authorised; this is the case in respect of Cap de la Hague.

  Environmental monitoring programmes carried out in southern England have detected no elevated levels of radioactivity above normal background. Any evaluation in the levels of ambient gamma dose rate in the UK would be immediately detected by the RIMNET network of continuously operating monitors, several of which are located along the South Coast of England.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the French authorities in respect of emissions from Cap de la Hague. [124217]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]There have been no recent discussions between my Department and the French authorities in respect of emissions from Cap de la Hague.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent data he has obtained in respect of emissions from Cap de la Hague. [124218]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]No recent data on emissions from Cap de la Hague have been received.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the policy of each train operating company towards(a) automatic train protection and (b) train protection and warning system. [124204]

  Mr. Hill
  The Railway Safety Regulations 1999 require all passenger lines, and all trains operating on them, to be fitted with a form of train protection equivalent to the train protection and warning system by the end of 2003. Each Train Operating Company has supplied to the Health and Safety Executive an action program to comply with these regulations. Where reasonably practicable, the Regulations require more advanced automatic train protection to be fitted, similar to that in service on Great Western, Chiltern, and Heathrow Express Trains.
  245W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with(a) Railtrack and (b) all train operating companies on reducing the number of signals passed at danger. [124203]

  Mr. Hill
  During their normal enforcement duties, the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate have regular and frequent meetings and discussions with both Railtrack and Train Operating Companies on reducing the number of signals passed at danger (SPADs). All SPADs, are required to be reported to the Railway Inspectorate, who investigate the more serious ones. A summary of these activities is given in the Health and Safety Executive's monthly report on SPADs, a copy of which is placed in the House Library.

  The Deputy Prime Minister highlighted the issue of SPADs at his recent rail summit with the industry.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2000,Official Report, column 537W, what proposals he has for the disposal of Landau Cottage, Upton Lovell, Warminster; how the disposal will be effected; and for what reasons. [124634]

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

  Letter from John Kerman to Mr. David Faber, dated 7 June 2000:
  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked the Acting Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Agency's proposals for the disposal of Landau Cottage, Upton Lovell, Warminster. I am replying in the absence of Peter Nutt.
  The Highways Agency has no current proposals for the disposal of Landau Cottage.
  The route of the withdrawn A36 Codford to Heytesbury scheme remains protected whilst the Government office for the South West carries out a study of the A36/A46 route which, between the M4 and the M27 motorways, is currently part of our non-core network. Disposal is ruled out while protection remains in place.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 April 2000,Official Report. column 612W, on departmental initiatives, if he will list the amounts originally budgeted for in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000, stating for each year what funds budgeted for were not spent, and if they were carried forward. [124413]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The budgets and underspend of the regeneration initiatives for which my Department is responsible are listed in the tables.

  Under an agreement with the European Commission, the Department carries forward underspend on the European Regional Development Fund programmes from year to year. Where the carry forward of unspent resources by the Department has been permitted under the Treasury's End Year Flexibility arrangements for the other regeneration programmes, it has been for the Secretary of State to determine to which departmental programmes such
  246W
  resources should be allocated, and to obtain Treasury agreement and parliamentary authority in Supplementary Estimates for increases on the Department's Votes. Entitlements to end year flexibility to be carried into 2000–01 have yet to be agreed.

  Holistic regeneration programmes

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Single Regeneration Budget:

  Budget

  481.6

  567.3

  707.6

  Underspend

  22.8

  6.4

  15.3

  New Deal for Communities:

  Budget

  0

  12.5

  100.0

  Underspend

  0

  12.3

  51.5

  The budget for New Deal for the Communities was reprofiled to reflect the pattern of actual spend which has emerged from the implementation of this innovatory programme which places communities at the heart of regenerating their neighbourhoods.

  Other regeneration initiatives

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  European Regional Development Fund:

  Budget

  194.8

  220.0

  266.9

  Underspend

  124.1

  176.6

  245.9

  The underspend figures for the European Regional Development Fund are cumulative from 1994. They cover programmes which ran from 1994 to 1999 for which expenditure is expected to continue until 2002–03.

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Coalfields Regeneration Trust

  Budget

  0

  17.7

  10.0

  Underspend

  0

  17.7

  9.0

  The budget for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is being reprofiled to reflect the launch date of September 1999.

  Home Seller's Pack Trial
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have participated in the seller's pack trial in Bristol; and how many transactions have been completed to date. [124635]

  Mr. Mullin
  The table gives the current number and status of people participating in the Bristol Seller's Information Pack.

  Number

  Number of sellers in scheme

  180

  Of which, offers accepted

  54

  Of which, contracts exchanged

  34

  Of which, reached completion1

  12

  1 The number of completions is an estimate, as participating sellers are not required to use the solicitor who assembles their pack to go on and complete their transaction.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects a decision to be announced in respect of the rail franchise for the south-east of England presently held by Connex. [124636]

  Mr. Hill
  Connex currently operate two franchises in the south of England—South Central (which serves Eastbourne) and South Eastern. The Franchising Director is currently evaluating two proposals—from Connex and GoVia—for a replacement South Central franchise. The preferred bidder will be announced when that evaluation process is complete. No date has been set for when that will be as this will depend on the progress of negotiations. The Franchising Director will take opportunities as they arise to replace the longer-term franchises, of which Connex South Eastern is one.

  Secondments
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many employees of private companies are seconded to his Department; and what is(a) the length of their secondment and (b) the subject of their work. [124788]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department currently has 11 secondees from private companies. They are all envisaged to last for a period of 12 months and the areas of work covered are as follows:

  Construction Industry Sponsorship (7)

  Export Promotion and Construction Materials

  Housing Care and Support

  Integrated Transport Task Force

  Environmental Protection Strategy.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 2000,Official Report, columns 158–59W, concerning secondments, which of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124830]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  From the organisations cited in the answer of 9 February 2000,Official Report, columns 158–59W, secondments of 12 months or less were agreed with the following companies:

  Kvaerner Construction

  OVE Arup

  Crown House Engineering

  Bovis Construction

  Kvaerner Cementation Foundations

  Geoffrey Reid Associates

  Marks & Spencer

  Bellway Urban Renewal

  KPMG

  ABROS

  OPM

  Institute for Fiscal Studies

  Buro-Happold

  Christiani and Nielson.

  Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and
  248W
  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.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the publication of proposed changes to Part L of the Building Regulations, relating to the conservation of fuel and power, has been delayed from Autumn 1999: when he intends to publish the proposed changes; and if he will make a statement. [124331]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 6 June 2000,Official Report, column 209W.

  Bulk Hazardous Cargoes
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce a mandatory operating scheme for vessels carrying bulk hazardous cargoes through the Pentlands Firth. [124685]

  Mr. Hill
  A mandatory reporting scheme is under consideration by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

  Currently, a voluntary reporting scheme is being used by vessels, and MCA are also looking at methods to encourage vessels to further participate in this scheme.

  Discussions at IMO are nearing a close concerning the carriage of transponders by vessels in the near future. This carriage requirement will automatically provide reporting and tracking information to the MC, which will be used in future operating schemes in the Pentland Firth.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives the Government are putting in place in Oxford to tackle rough sleeping. [124395]

  Ms Armstrong
  In 1999, £621,412 funding under the homelessness action programme was allocated to projects in Oxford for the three years from April 1999. This provided support for co-ordination, outreach and resettlement work and to staff working in hostels for rough sleepers.

  In addition, the Department of Health provided £52,500 in 2000–01 under the homeless mentally ill initiative for working with rough sleepers with mental health problems.

  We are currently working with all local authorities with a rough sleeping problem to revise their rough sleeping strategies. Following this review process additional homelessness action programme and drug and alcohol specific grant funding may be allocated to support the revised strategies.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of rough sleepers in the UK are from ethnic minority groups. [124396]
  249W
  Ms Armstrong
  Surveys and research from a wide range of sources consistently find that less than 10 per cent. of rough sleepers in England are from ethnic minority groups, with 90 per cent. or more being White UK or Irish. Tackling rough sleeping and related research in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales is the responsibility of the devolved Administrations.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of rough sleepers in Oxford in 1999. [124397]

  Ms Armstrong
  A single night street count was carried out in accordance with DETR guidelines in Oxford on 20 October 1999 during which 16 people were found sleeping rough across the city.

  Teesside Development Corporation
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the report on inquiries into allegations against the former Teesside Development Corporation will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [125244]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House copies of the report prepared by officials of my Department.

  They sought to establish whether there was any firm evidence which would support various allegations that had been made against the former Development Corporation. In the event, insufficient documentary evidence was found that would definitively prove or disprove the allegations.

  However, some evidence emerged suggesting that a grant paid by the Corporation to a local company had been diverted. The police were informed and I understand that they are making further investigations.

  Community Strategies
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish guidance dealing with the preparation of community strategies; and if he will make a statement. [125356]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am today publishing draft guidance to local authorities on the preparation of community strategies. This will be the subject of wide-ranging consultation over the course of the summer. We aim to issue final guidance to authorities in the autumn.

  The draft guidance, "Preparing Community Strategies", recognises that the key to any effective community planning process lies in engaging local communities, listening to their concerns and addressing their needs and priorities.

  Community strategies will represent a significant shift in the way local organisations work together and the way that they relate to local people. Strategies should bring together public, private and community sector organisations, and focus their activities on responding to local needs articulated by local people.
  250W
  Councils must fully involve local residents, business people and voluntary groups in the preparation of strategies which:
  Establish an agreed vision for the area—setting out the sort of communities that, in the longer term, people want to live in;
  identify the priorities for action that will help realise that vision; and
  secure the commitment of the various partners to specific actions to help meet those priorities.

  Community strategies must be holistic. They should look at all the needs of local communities—jobs and wealth creation, social conditions and the quality of the built and natural environment. They must plan for sustainable, inclusive communities which promote economic, social and environmental aims and contribute to a better quality of life for all.

  I have placed copies of the draft guidance in the Libraries of both Houses.

HEALTH

  HC1 Forms
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many HC1 forms are incorrectly filled in each year. [122781]

  Ms Stuart
  Where an HC1 claim form provides insufficient information for the calculation of entitlement to remission of National Health Service charges, the Prescription Pricing Authority seeks further information or clarification by telephone wherever possible. For 1999–2000, around 169,0001 HC1 claim forms had to be returned because the matter could not be resolved in any other way.
  1 These are in respect of GB as figures are not collected separately for England.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people apply each year for financial help with NHS health costs using an HC1 form. [122782]

  Ms Stuart
  In England for the year 1999–2000, the Prescription Pricing Authority received around 903,000 applications for help with NHS Health costs on an HC1 claim form. The number of people covered by the applications is not collected.

  Photodynamic Therapy
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities which have agreed to fund the cost of drugs for use within the photodynamic therapy trials currently being conducted in Liverpool. [123892]

  Ms Stuart
  None of the drugs on trial in Liverpool have yet been licensed in this country. In line with normal practice for any clinical trial, all supplies at this stage are funded by the drug companies concerned. It is unlikely that health authorities will yet have considered or discussed possible future funding arrangements.

  Cancer Services (Dorset)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the National Health Service's ability to ensure that cancer patients in Dorset will be seen by consultants within two weeks of referral. [124518]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Dorset patients with suspected breast cancer who have been referred as urgent by their general practitioner have all been seen within two weeks of referral. The South West Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive has assessed Dorset Health Authority's plans and is satisfied that they have the capacity to meet the two week target for urgent referrals in other cancers.

  Non-English Speaking Patients
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's estimate of the extra cost to the NHS of(a) interpretation services and (b) other costs resulting from providing services for patients who do not speak English in each of the last five years. [124398]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the costs of interpretation services and other services for patients who do not speak English is not collected centrally.

  NHS Executive
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's estimate of the annual savings resulting from the location of NHS Executive staff in Quarry House, Leeds rather than in London. [124399]

  Ms Stuart
  The outturn review of the financial appraisal for the relocation of the National Health Service Executive carried out in July 1995 estimated net annual savings of £10.1 million from 2000–01 onwards (at 1993–94 prices).

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 119W, concerning secondments, which of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124828]

  Ms Stuart
  Secondees from Hempsons, Dickinson Dees, Addleshaw Booth and Company, Berwin Leighton, Herbert Smith and one from Private Finance Panel Executive were appointed for a period of 12 months or less.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2000,Official Report, columns 313–16W, concerning secondments, which of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124821]
  252W
  Dr. Howells
  Giving the information in the same format as set out in my answer of 11 February, the details of those secondments that were for a period of less than 12 months are:

  1 May 1997 to 30 April 1998

  British Telecom plc

  Littlejon Frazer

  The Institute of Exports

  Mobil

  EPSRC

  Reuters Ltd.

  Westcountry Development Corp.

  Hydro Technologies Ltd.

  Delamore Associates Ltd.

  1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999

  Lloyds TSB Group plc

  British Telecom plc

  Slaughter & May

  Knight Piebald Ltd.

  AEA Technology plc

  EPSRC

  Grant Thornton

  Financial Service Authority

  GK Communications Group Ltd.

  Simmons & Simmons

  LGC Ltd.

  1 May 1999 to 8 February 2000

  The Beaver Housing Society Ltd.

  The Wellcome Trust

  Proactive Associates Ltd.

  British Telecom plc

  Reuters Ltd.

  AstraZeneca

  Unipath Ltd.

  The Symphony Group plc

  John Laing International Ltd.

  Simmons & Simmons

  Shell UK Exploration & Production

  Grant Thornton

  One North East

  BHP Petroleum Ltd.

  Phoenix Timber Group plc

  Biwater International Ltd.

  Trades Union Congress

  KCA Drilling Ltd.

  Imperial Chemical Industries plc.

  Contracts (Bribes)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government intends to introduce(a) legislative and (b) other steps to meet the United Kingdom's treaty obligations in respect of prosecuting British businesses and individual business personnel who offer bribes and other unlawful inducements to obtain contracts abroad; and if he will make a statement. [124839]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are already able to comply with their relevant treaty obligations. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary plans however to set out
  253W
  the Government's proposals for the reform of the law of corruption shortly. The Government will look to introduce legislation as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from other Governments about United Kingdom action to combat the offering by British businesses and individual business personnel of bribes and other unlawful inducements in order to obtain contracts abroad; and if he will make a statement. [124838]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have received a number of representations about this issue. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary plans to set out the Government's position as part of its wider proposals for the reform of the law on corruption shortly.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will be in a position to announce his decisions on those applications for gas-fired combined heat and power stations that are awaiting determination. [125246]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today announced the following decisions:Tullis Russell Papermaking Ltd. and Scottish Power plc
  Clearance has been given under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 to Tullis Russell Papermaking Ltd. and Scottish Power plc to build a 49MW gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Tullis Russell works, Markinch, Fife.
  Alcan Chemicals Europe and Scottish Power plc
  Clearance has been given under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 to Alcan Chemicals Europe and Scottish Power plc to build a 13MW gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Alcan works, Burntisland, Fife.
  Tioxide Europe Ltd.
  Clearance has been given under Section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 to Tioxide Europe Ltd. to build a 24MW gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Huntsman Tioxide works, Grimsby, North Lincolnshire.

  The decisions to give clearance to these proposals on energy policy grounds are without prejudice to any decision that may be taken on whether or not planning permissions are granted.

  These decisions have been taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071).

  Copies of the Press Notice and clearances are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Information and Communication Technologies
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing to help the United Kingdom manufacturing sector, with particular reference to small and medium-sized enterprises, to maximise the potential benefits from the use of information and communication technologies. [125068]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have today announced the launch of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Carrier Programme.
  254W
  The ICT-Carrier Programme is valued at £12,000,000, including industrial contributions of £6 million.

  The programme aims to improve the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in engineering industries by adapting and transferring examples of good practice in the use of ICT from one sector to another. It forms part of the Department's drive to improve the competitiveness of manufacturing industry in a knowledge driven economy.

  Internal Market Council (Brussels)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Internal Market Council held in Brussels on 25 May; and if he will make a statement. [124666]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I represented the UK at the Internal Market Council in Brussels on 25 May.

  The Council discussed the Commission's first review of the Internal Market Strategy and broadly endorsed its priority actions, although I emphasised that the UK could not endorse every action, such as some of those relating to tax. The Commission presented the latest version of the Single Market Scoreboard and France and Sweden outlined their priorities for the Single Market for their Presidencies in the context of the Joint Work Programme of the Three Presidencies. The Council approved the draft Conclusions on the review of the Simpler Legislation in the Internal Market (SLIM) initiative, which took full account of input from the UK. The Council also endorsed the report of discussions of the Commission's White Paper on Food Safety. The Commission's draft eEurope Action Plan, which is to be implemented by the end of 2002 and is intended to enhance European competitiveness by accelerating e-commerce, reducing internet access costs and promoting skills and training, was welcomed.

  The Council reached political agreement on the Winding up of Insurance Undertakings Directive (with Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg abstaining) and the Clinical Trials Directive, which will harmonise the procedures and standards of clinical trials for medicine (with Austria abstaining). The Honey Directive (with UK and Belgium abstaining) and the Chocolate Directive (with Belgium voting against) were agreed as "A" points.

  The Commission presented its proposals for amending the Directives on public procurement and reported progress on the Community Design and on its proposals for making permanent its temporary ban on the use of phthalates in toys and child care articles. The Commission announced that it had decided not to carry out further work on international exhaustion of trademarks, though a number of member states, including the UK, argued that the issue needed further consideration; the Council agreed to revert to the subject at a future session.

  There was no agreement on the Copyright in the Information Society Directive, which updates the framework of EU copyright law to take account of digital technology and the internet. The Council attempted to resolve issues relating to exceptions to copyright and made good progress in identifying the likely framework for a deal. Discussions will continue at Coreper, with the Portuguese intending to achieve political agreement during their Presidency.
  255W
  Over lunch, the Council discussed the follow-up to the Lisbon European Council.

  Limited Liability Partnerships
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has had with the Insolvency Service about the potential for disqualified and failed directors creating limited liability partnerships for new operations. [124451]

  Dr. Howells
  The Insolvency Service have been closely involved at every stage in the development of limited liability partnerships. The Government's proposals include the application, by secondary legislation, of existing safeguards and sanctions relating to disqualified directors. This will ensure that those who have been disqualified on the basis of unfit conduct under any of the provisions of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 will also be prohibited from being a member of, or being in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned with taking part in the formation or management of a limited liability partnership, unless they obtain leave of the court to so act.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has had with the(a) FSA, (b) Competition Commission and (c) Office of Fair Trading about their role in regulating limited liability partnerships. [124450]

  Dr. Howells
  There have been discussions at official level with other Departments and the FSA. To date we have not discussed the detail either with the Office of Fair Trading or the Competition Commission.

  The Limited Liability Partnerships Bill creates a new legal entity, the limited liability partnership. Other Departments will consider the limited liability partnership in the context of their policy areas and decide what, if any, amendments to existing legislation are required. Clause 15 of the Bill contains regulation-making powers which may be used to apply to LLPs any law relating to companies, other corporations and partnerships. Clause 16 contains a power to make consequential amendments. Other Departments will give consideration to whether it is appropriate to make amendments to their primary legislation under these powers or under any other legislation which the relevant Department is itself bringing forward.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for stopping(a) convicted fraudsters, (b) directors censured by his Department and (c) directors of failed companies setting themselves up as limited liability partnerships; what regulatory framework such partnerships will operate under; and what sanctions can be operated against such partnerships. [124368]

  Dr. Howells
  We will be applying to limited liability partnerships, under powers contained in clauses 14 and 15 of the LLP Bill, large portions of the Companies Act 1985 and the Insolvency Act 1986, with appropriate modifications. This will provide the general regulatory framework.
  256W
  In addition, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, which provides for the disqualification of a person from being a director of a company in certain circumstances, will also be applied to the members of an LLP.

  The Company Directors Disqualification Act gives the court a power to disqualify persons on a variety of grounds, including on conviction of an indictable offence, persistent breaches of companies legislation, fraud in a winding up and participation in wrongful trading. In addition, the court will be under a duty to disqualify a person where it is satisfied that his conduct as a member of an insolvent LIP renders him unfit to so act. Simply being a director of a failed company (or, in future a member of a failed LLP) will not, though, necessarily result in disqualification—the intention is to punish abuse of limited liability not the mere fact of failure.

  The application of the Company Directors Disqualification Act to LLPs will ensure that any director who is disqualified under the provisions of the CDDA would not be eligible to be a member of an LLP or take part in the promotion, formation or management of an LLP. In a similar way a member of an LLP may be disqualified from acting as a director of a company.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has had with(a) the Consumers Association and (b) trading standards authorities about he possibilities of fraud arising from (i) fraudsters and (ii) disqualified and failed directors setting up limited liability partnerships. [124449]

  Dr. Howells
  No such consultations have taken place. Secondary legislation will apply to LLPs appropriately modified parts of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Companies Act 1585. This will include the wrongful and fraudulent trading provisions, and powers of investigation. The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 will also apply, such that disqualified directors will not be eligible to be members of an LLP and vice versa. In these cases the regulation of an LLP will be the same as that of a company.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for ensuring that limited liability partnerships set money aside for legal claims against the partnership. [124366]

  Dr. Howells
  After considerable consultation, and taking account of the views of the Trade and Industry Committee, the Government concluded that LLPs would not be required to maintain any kind of fund or insurance to protect against claims. The main reasons for reaching this conclusion were:the lack of justification for requiring a higher level of funding than is required of private companies;
  the difficulty of seeing an appropriate level which is high enough to safeguard the interests of third parties, but does not discourage firms from either setting up in business or trading through difficulties;
  the general availability of LLPs makes it difficult to design a regime which could adequately distinguish between the many types of business which might become LLPs and the different liabilities they might face;
  it is more appropriate to regulate an activity, rather than an entity, so as to tailor the regulation effectively. For example, where professions require professional indemnity insurance, the level of

  257W
  insurance required will vary depending on the profession. A general requirement made of LLPs would conflict with any existing requirements.

  More detail on this matter is set out in the Government Observations on the Fourth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee (Session 1998–99) on the draft Limited Liability Partnership Bill (HC 529).

  Premium Rate Telephone Services
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the regulatory framework governing the promotion by businesses of premium rate telephone services so as to improve consumer protection. [124677]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS) has responsibility for regulating premium rate services. ICSTIS enforces an effective Code of Practice which has provisions to ensure that consumers are given adequate information to enable them to take informed decisions about the use of premium rate services. ICSTIS and Oftel are reviewing the regulatory framework for Premium Rate Services to ensure that consumers continue to benefit from the right level of protection.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Fair Funding
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the net effect on school budgets of the new Fair Funding arrangements for schools during the financial year 1999–2000 for(a) England and (b) each local education authority; and if he will make a statement. [124689]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In 1999–2000, 82.4 per cent. of the Local Schools Budget was delegated to schools, compared with 79.2 per cent. of a broadly comparable figure in the previous year. This increase of 3.2 per cent. in the delegation rate represents an extra £634 million delegated to schools. Fair Funding will result in a further increase in delegation in 2000–01, since it is being implemented in two stages. Comparisons between individual local education authorities for change from 1999–2000 to 2000–01 will appear in expenditure tables to be available shortly.

  Women 2000
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what contribution the Government are making to the United Nations Conference, Women 2000: Gender, Equality, Development and Peace for the Twenty-first Century. [125249]

  Ms Jowell
  We published yesterday and have placed in the Library two documents: "Equality in practice" and "Women and Men in the UK: facts and figures 2000".

  "Equality in practice" is a short, practical and lively document which shows how the UK Government are improving women's lives at home and overseas by focusing on five vital areas: women and the economy, making equality happen, education, health and the resolving of crime and violence. It also describes some
  258W
  of the work being carried out with partner countries and organisations in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean and Eastern Europe.

  "Women and Men in the UK: facts and figures 2000" tells the story of women and men's changing position in society. It highlights both change and continuity with facts and figures. It is a celebration of women's achievements and a reminder of what more still needs to be done. The UK Government are working to create a more just society, one in which women and men are equal. To achieve this, we have to understand what has and has not changed. These facts and figures are vital to inform our thinking and policy making.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) schools have expanded their published roll, (b) extra teachers have been recruited and (c) additional classrooms have been built, as a result of implementing the class size initiative. [124076]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]We are making available £620 million to local education authorities to deliver our pledge to reduce infant class sizes to 30 pupils or fewer. This will allow authorities to provide some 6,000 extra teachers and to build over 2,000 additional infant classrooms. We do not keep information on the number of schools which have adjusted their standard numbers in order to meet the infant class size limit. However, we estimate that around 12,000 additional places are being provided in popular schools as a result of our initiative to eliminate large infant classes.

  Primary Schools (Access)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what definition he uses of a reasonable distance when determining access to a primary school. [124668]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not determine access to primary schools for school admissions. School admission authorities may, however, use distance when determining how to allocate places if the school is oversubscribed. If a pupil is attending his or her nearest suitable school, and that school is beyond statutory walking distance, the local education authority must provide free transport. Statutory walking distances are two miles for pupils aged up to seven and three miles for those aged eight and over.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for each year since the National Lottery began, how many Lottery funding applications from organisations in(a) Dumfries and

  259W
  Galloway, (b) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale parliamentary constituency were (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful, broken down by National Lottery good cause category. [124723]

  Kate Hoey
  We have contacted the Scottish Arts Council, the National Lottery Charities Board, the New Opportunities Fund, Sport Scotland, the United Kingdom Sports Council, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Millennium Commission to request the information required, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the projects funded by capital expenditure from his Department in each of the last six years, indicating the nature of the project, its start date and its value. [124706]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has funded the following capital projects:

  Project

  Year of start

  Year of completion

  Total cost (£ million)

  British Library: St. Pancras

  1978–79

  1999–2000

  512.8

  Windsor Castle: Fire restoration

  1992–93

  1999–2000

  10.65

  In addition, my Department has spent the following administration capital expenditure mainly on office refurbishment, IT equipment and office furniture:

  Year

  £ million

  1994–951

  2.131

  1995–961

  1.197

  1996–971

  1.110

  1997–981

  0.643

  1998–991

  0.701

  1999–20002

  1.128

  1 Outturn

  2 Provision

  The above expenditure is for my Department only; capital expenditure by my Department's NDPBs is not recorded centrally and has therefore been excluded.

  Forms
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the net change in each year since May 1997 in the number of forms issued by his Department which(a) charities and (b) other voluntary organisations are required to complete. [123952]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has not required charities or other voluntary organisations to complete any such forms since May 1997. Various returns are, however, required of non-departmental public bodies funded by the Department, and of these 22 have charitable status, most of which are national museums and galleries.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Conservation Projects (Africa)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact of her Department's aid programme on conservation projects in Africa. [123177]

  Clare Short
  We have recently completed a major evaluation of our environmental work in Africa and elsewhere. This concluded that we have been focusing too much on screening development projects to prevent environmental damage. Our future efforts will be focused on promoting better livelihoods for people and sustainable development of their economies.

  Romania
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had on the condition of Romanian orphans. [123178]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My Department and our Embassy in Bucharest are in close touch with the Romanian authorities and outer key players to support ongoing efforts to improve care for Romanian orphans. Progress has been disappointingly slow. Romania is only now starting to take the problem seriously. I will be visiting Romania on 19–20 June and will press for faster progress.

  Ethiopia and Eritrea
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current humanitarian situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea. [123180]

  Clare Short
  The situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea is a tragedy. Two of the poorest countries in the world have spent considerable resources in prosecuting a border war over the past two years where it is estimated that over 100,000 people have died. The Government of Ethiopia estimate eight million people will need humanitarian assistance this year. The UN are currently assessing the numbers of people in Eritrea displaced by the war. The international community will provide humanitarian relief for those affected by drought and displaced by war. But what the people of both countries need is peace and development.

  Customs Officers (Caribbean)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the changes will be in the next two financial years in her Department's funding of training for customs officers in(a) St. Lucia and (b) other parts of the Caribbean. [123181]

  Clare Short
  We are currently funding Customs Reform and Modernisation projects in St. Lucia and Grenada at a cost of £1.1 million. The projects aim to enhance the organisational, operational and management capacity of the Customs Departments in those islands and are scheduled for completion in December. We also provide support for the Caribbean Customs Enforcement Council in this provision of training for Customs Officers.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources she is devoting in her aid programmes to support for school infrastructure and equipment in sub-Saharan Africa. [123182]

  Clare Short
  We are committed to the International Development Target of achieving universal primary education by 2015. This is the priority for our education assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa, where over the last two years we have committed over £150 million to support the development of universal primary education programmes, which include support for primary school infrastructure and equipment. Our aim is to help African countries build and sustain effective and equitable education systems which give priority to primary education for all. This requires a shift from the traditional projects-based approach to a sector-wide approach to basic and primary education, with development agencies working together around a focused, agreed strategy drawn up by the Government of the country concerned Uganda is a good example. In collaboration with five other donors and the Government of Uganda, we have played a key role in the establishment of a sector-wide approach to education, resulting in 1998 in our largest ever commitment to a programme in Africa (£67 million) towards the Education Sector Support Programme. This will provide flexible budget support to the Government for five years.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the extent of hunger in southern Africa. [123183]

  Clare Short
  There have been good rains across southern Africa this year and prospects for the grain harvest are good. Given recent floods, there are likely to be pockets of food insecurity in some countries. Food security is being monitored carefully within the Southern Africa Development Community region and our representatives participate in donor/Government consultation groups and receive regular reports from national and regional production forecasting organisations.

  EU Aid Pro grammes
  14. Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reforms she will propose to the European Union to increase the effectiveness of its whole aid programme. [123184]

  Clare Short
  We have published an 18-point strategy to improve the poverty focus and effectiveness of EC development assistance. The new European Commission has taken several positive steps, including the reduction of the number of Commissioners responsible for European Community development programmes from five to two, the establishment of poverty reduction as the overarching objective of the successor to the Lomé Convention and the restructuring of the European Development Fund, including the recent publication of a draft development policy statement and of proposals to reform the administration of EC external programmes. However, most of the proposed changes have not yet been implemented. We are pressing the Commission to draw up clear action plans to put the proposals that have been 262W
  made into practice. We will continue to work closely with the Commission and other member states to improve the poverty focus, effectiveness and efficiency of EC programmes.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met her EU counterparts to discuss EU aid programmes; and what subjects were discussed. [123197]

  Clare Short
  I last met my EU counterparts to discuss EC aid programmes at the Development Council on 18 May. The following subjects were discussed:Sierra Leone, Cöte d'Ivoire and Guinea Bissau
  EC development co-operation policy
  Action Plan to implement the May 1999 conclusions on the evaluation of EC development assistance
  Reform of the management of Community aid
  Operational co-ordination between the Community and member states
  Structural adjustment
  Integrating the environment and sustainable development into EC development policy
  HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis
  Zimbabwe
  Great Lakes (Rwanda/Burundi)
  Ethiopia/Eritrea
  AIDS
  Evaluation of humanitarian aid
  Crisis and conflict situations in developing countries (emergency, rehabilitation, development and unstable situations)
  New procedures for legislative acts in the field of development
  Preparation for the third UN conference on Least Developed Countries
  Development aspects of the 6th Conference of the Parties of the UN Convention on Climate Change
  Support to development education.

  A copy of the report on the outcome of the Development Council is in the Library of the House.

  Climate-related Disasters
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of Christian Aid's recent reports on the impact of climate-related disasters on developing countries. [123185]

  Clare Short
  I share many of the concerns for developing countries expressed in Christian Aid's recent reports. The impact of climate change is likely to constitute one of the biggest global environmental problems for the 21st century. It is likely to affect developing countries and particularly poor people disproportionately, since they are both more vulnerable to disaster and less able to cope in its event.

  Our objectives in assisting countries to deal with disasters are to save lives through emergency relief, to protect and rebuild livelihoods and communities, and to reduce vulnerability to future disasters. We are working to improve understanding of the possible impacts of climate change on developing countries in order to help them take account of these in their development planning and so reduce their future vulnerability. We also work with developing countries to help improve their energy efficiency and reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.

  Women (Developing World)
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department has taken to improve the education and productivity of women to reduce poverty in the developing world. [123186]

  Clare Short
  Educating girls and the economic empowerment of women are top priorities in our international development programme. The evidence shows that educating girls is the single most effective way of promoting development. We are committed to helping achieve the international development target of closing gender gaps in primary and secondary education by 2005. Our bilateral and multilateral programmes are placing increasing emphasis on this work.

  The pursuit of gender equality in all areas of development lies at the heart of our programme. A good deal of effort is being directed towards improving women's livelihood security, productivity, and economic independence.

  Mozambique
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of development moneys provided to Mozambique to remedy flood damage. [123187]

  Clare Short
  We have a permanent office in Mozambique, which was strengthened following the floods to allow constant monitoring and ensure effective use of funds. All reports to date indicate that the UK-funded relief and rehabilitation activities are being well managed.

  In May, the Government of Mozambique held a conference to present to the international community reconstruction needs following the floods. Donors responded by pledging over USD453 million to support these efforts. We have provided support to the United Nations Development Programme for a project to assist the Mozambican authorities with the effective prioritisation and channelling of donor reconstruction contributions. We will continue to monitor progress over the coming months.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Sierra Leone. [123188]

  Clare Short
  Humanitarian specialists from my Department have just returned from a week-long assessment mission in Sierra Leone. Chronic humanitarian problems are being exacerbated by the conflict, which is also restricting access to those in need. We are currently looking at the most effective way to provide further humanitarian assistance.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on British aid to Sierra Leone. [123198]

  Clare Short
  We have been strongly engaged in supporting the development of Sierra Leone since the return to democratic Government there in March 1998. In the period since then we have allocated almost £70 million to programmes and projects which are designed to help 264W
  restore peace, stability and promote good governance on a sustainable basis. Some projects will need to be revised in the light of recent events. Others, including humanitarian assistance, will continue as soon as access is possible to those areas where they are to be implemented.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from voluntary organisations and charities regarding the debt reduction initiative in advance of the G8 summit at Okinawa. [123189]

  Clare Short
  I continue to receive many letters from Church and other voluntary organisations on debt relief, many referring to the G8 Summit in Okinawa in July. When the Prime Minister met the Japanese Prime Minister last month, they agreed the importance of discussing debt issues in Okinawa.

  The Government are committed to keeping up the momentum on the implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative in the run up to the Summit, and beyond.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about debt relief in southern Africa. [123192]

  Clare Short
  Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia are all Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, and in need of the exceptional debt relief provided under the HIPC Initiative. Mozambique received debt relief totalling $1.72 billion in June 1999, and will receive a further $250 million under the enhanced HIPC Initiative. Following the flooding there multilateral and bilateral creditors took special action to free up resources for reconstruction. The World bank and the IMF agreed to provide 100 per cent. relief on debt service payments in the first year, and the Paris Club has suspended all payments until Mozambique reaches its Completion Point under the revised HIPC framework, which is expected to be early next year.

  Malawi and Zambia are both working towards qualifying for debt relief under the enhanced. HIPC Initiative. To do so they need to maintain progress on economic reform and to develop national poverty reduction strategies.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects the targets on debt relief for HIPC countries to be reached. [123193]

  Clare Short
  So far, only five countries have qualified for debt relief under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. This is disappointing. But at the recent Spring Meetings of the IMF and World bank, it was agreed to establish a joint World bank/IMF committee to oversee the implementation process, as the Chancellor and I had suggested. The committee has now begun its work, and should provide a focus for efforts towards meeting the commitment that three quarters of eligible countries will start to receive debt relief before the end of 2000.

  Globalisation
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects to publish the White Paper on globalisation. [123190]
  265W
  Clare Short
  The Government intend to publish their White Paper on Globalisation and Development in the autumn.

  Plan Colombia
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to the Plan Colombia proposals made by the Colombian Government. [123191]

  Clare Short
  Plan Colombia is a first step in efforts to bring peace to Colombia. Much remains to be done. The UK is discussing with its EU colleagues how best to respond to the Plan.

  On-line Communications
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to promote the development of on-line communications in the developing world. [123194]

  Clare Short
  Over the next decade these new technologies have the potential significantly to improve poor people's access to information, markets and other services, but also the very real potential to increase the gap yet further between the rich and the poor. We intend to play a significant role in helping to bridge this emerging digital divide. Our new Development White Paper will specifically address the issue of information and communication as one of the key factors in globalisation. The White Paper will outline what role the UK can play, both directly and indirectly, to promote widespread access to information and communication in developing countries.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid programmes for Zimbabwe. [123195]

  Clare Short
  Our country strategy paper for Zimbabwe was published in April 1999. It outlines the case for economic reform and land redistribution in order to improve the life opportunities of poor Zimbabweans. It makes clear our willingness to provide resources up to £36 million for this purpose. Unfortunately there has been no such reform and the economic and political situation is very worrying. Our programme is therefore focused on HIV/AIDS, water and rural livelihoods. Our spending is £12 million.

  Biotechnology
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions(a) she and (b) her officials have held with the Governments of countries in receipt of aid on the use of biotechnology. [123196]

  Clare Short
  My officials and I hold many discussions with partner Governments on issues in which the use of biotechnology may be raised.

  The kinds of biotechnology most likely to benefit the world's poorest are processes which improve crop yields, vaccine production, water treatment and contraceptive technologies, antibiotics and diagnostic techniques.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 23 May 2000,Official Report, columns 408–09W, if the Comparative Study of air and sea access to and from St. Helena will consider emergency medical evacuations. [124801]

  Clare Short
  The Comparative Study will consider health issues including emergency medical evacuations from the island.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the aid to St. Helena in(a) cash and (b) constant terms was spent on the island itself in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [124811]

  Clare Short
  The figures for aid to St. Helena for the period 1988–89 to 1998–99 in current and constant (1998–99) prices are:

  £000

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  1988–89

  18,652

  27,760

  1989–90

  24,170

  33,570

  1990–97

  11,636

  14,988

  1991–95

  7,910

  9,594

  1992–93

  8,658

  10,165

  1993–94

  8,603

  9,838

  1994–95

  7,786

  8,778

  1995–96

  8,695

  9,528

  1996–97

  7,781

  8,261

  1997–98

  8,385

  8,661

  1998–99

  8,587

  8,587

  The figures for the period 1988–89 to 1990–91 include construction costs for the RMS St. Helena. Disaggregated figures for offshore and local expenditure are not readily available.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will give details of the visits made to each Overseas Territory by Ministers in her Department since 1 May 1997. [124831]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have visited Montserrat on two occasions. The first was from 31 August until 2 September 1997, and the second from 12 January to 13 January 1999. Neither the Secretary of State nor I have made other visits to Overseas Territories during this time.

  Aid Programmes (Religious Affiliation)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what account she takes of religious affiliation in the planning of aid programmes. [124565]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development does not take account of religious affiliation in planning development programmes. All our work places a strong emphasis on human rights. Freedom of worship is a fundamental freedom. Persecution of people for their religious belief is a breach of international human rights conventions.
  267W
  Where we support civil society organizations which have an evangelising role, we make it clear that our support is for programmes and activities which contribute to the elimination of poverty and which are delivered without religious or sectarian bias.

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department spent on opinion research in the financial year 1999–2000. [123923]

  Clare Short
  As announced in our "Building Support for Development" strategy paper, we are committed to regular monitoring of public and young people's attitudes to development in order to inform and monitor the impact of the public education work of the Department. Studies were undertaken in July 1999 on general public attitudes and in March 2000 on young people's attitudes. The results are available on DFID's website and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. In 1999–2000 we spent £42,625 on this research. In addition, we spent £1,804 on a readership survey of "Developments" magazine, in order to test the impact and reach of the magazine. The results of this are available through the website.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Crop Contamination
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has sought from Canada as to how the contamination of oil seed rape with GM produce occurred. [123766]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]One of my officials has visited the Canadian Authorities in Ottawa to seek information on possible sources of the contamination. Further investigations are being carried out by the Canadian Authorities.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Swedish Board of Agriculture concerning their action on contaminated oilseed rape seed; and what action he intends to take as a result. [124352]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]MAFF has discussed the recent Advanta incident with the Swedish Board of Agriculture and took account of the position in Sweden and elsewhere in the EU in deciding on appropriate action in the UK.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received about conventional maize seed which was contaminated by GM maize being grown in this country. [124341]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]We have received no such reports. Suggestions have been made in the press that some GM seeds of maize may be present in stocks of non-GM maize seeds. I announced on 17 May 2000,Official Report, column 173W, an urgent study of the risk of GM seeds in imported conventional seeds.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what implications planting of oil seed rape contaminated with GM produce 268W
  has for (a) the separation policy for GM crop trials and other crops and (b) the regulations governing GM crops. [123762]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The Government have initiated a review of separation distances for GM crops and are pressing for new international seed purity standards relating to the presence of GM seeds in conventional seed stocks.

  EU Regulations (Appeal Procedures)
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce appeal procedures in cases where farmers incur penalties for what they conceive to be genuine errors in filling in paperwork to comply with EU regulations. [124676]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]We are well aware of the industry's strength of feeling on this issue which was reflected in the recommendation of the IACS and Inspection Working Group that an appeal mechanism is set up and that industry be consulted on proposals. We expect shortly to be in a position to consult on possible options, in addition to the existing provisions, that might be of benefit to the industry. We are keen to ensure that any mechanism we decide to introduce is streamlined, efficient and not an additional burden in terms of cost and time to all parties that are involved in the process.

  Forms
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the net change in each year since May 1997 in the number of forms issued by his Department which(a) charities and (b) other voluntary organisations are required to complete. [123953]

  Ms Quin
  With one exception for the activity and expenditure of one organisation, the Department does not issue any forms which are required to be completed specifically by charities or other voluntary bodies. If organisations within these sectors wish to apply for schemes operated by the Department they would be subject to the same requirements as other applicants.

  Animal By-products
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures are in place to provide authority to a contractor to dispose of animal by-products under the Animal By-Products Order 1999. [124082]

  Ms Quin
  The Animal By-Products Order 1999 requires any person who has in his possession or under his control any animal by-product to dispose of it in accordance with that Order. Such disposal must usually be by rendering or incineration; no prior authority is required.

  However, in certain circumstances, for example if there is a lack of capacity at rendering premises or incinerators, the appropriate Minister may serve a notice on the person in charge of animal by-products requiring those by-products to be disposed of by burning or burial.
  269W
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring his Department undertakes of the implementation of the Animal By-Products Order 1999 requiring disposal of animal by-products by incineration or rendering. [124102]

  Ms Quin
  Members of the State Veterinary Service visit premises registered or approved under the Animal By-Products Order 1999, regularly to monitor compliance with the provisions of the Order. It is a requirement of the Order that detailed records of despatch and receipt of animal by-products are kept.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls his Department has put in place in order to monitor any threat from the importation of cattle suspected of bovine TB. [123910]

  Ms Quin
  Under EU legislation, all cattle imported from another member state must come from a herd which is officially free of TB. They must be tested for TB within 30 days prior to import unless the member state is officially recognised as being free of TB. Once the cattle are imported, they are subject to random non-discriminatory inspections and to our TB monitoring programme, which is also governed by EU legislation. Cattle imported from countries outside the EU have to enter via an approved Border Inspection Post where they are subjected to clinical inspection immediately upon arrival. Such cattle must also have had a pre-export TB test and originate from a TB-free herd.

  Flood Plains (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposals for development on flood plains in Northamptonshire. [124140]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]I have been asked to reply.

  Local planning authorities in Northamptonshire are conscious of the need to avoid increasing the risk of flooding and exercise a precautionary approach in considering planning applications for development that is either in the flood plain or likely to increase surface water run-off. They take into account advice from the Environment Agency in deciding whether or not planning permission should be granted. A Northampton Liaison Group including representatives from the Environment Agency, local authorities, developers and local groups meets regularly to consider development proposals.

  The draft replacement Northamptonshire Structure Plan contains a policy which provides that development will not be permitted in areas at direct risk from flooding, or where flood risk would be increased, unless satisfactory mitigation measures are proposed. This issue was debated at the Examination in Public of the Plan in February and the Report of the Panel is awaited.

TREASURY

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 March 2000,Official Report, column 47W, concerning secondments, which of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124818]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Eleven.

  Pension Funds
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what initiatives he has launched to attract new sources of finance, including pension funds, to the risk investment sector. [124758]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Risk capital is a vital source of finance for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with the potential for rapid growth. The Government have introduced a number of measures to encourage individuals, institutional funds and companies to invest more in this sector.

  For individuals, this year's Finance Bill introduces significant reductions in capital gains tax (CGT) for investment in unquoted companies. All such holdings, with no minimum threshold, now qualify as "business assets", and higher rate taxpayers who now invest in such shares for at least four years will pay an effective rate of only 10 per cent. on the capital gains realised.

  The Finance Bill also makes several improvements to the operation of the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), which provides tax incentives for individuals to invest in smaller higher risk trading companies. Income tax reliefs will now be available on shares held for at least three years (rather than the previous five year limit), and SMEs will be able more easily to seek capital from both EIS investors and venture capital funds. Parallel changes to the tax reliefs for individuals investing in risk capital via Venture Capital Trusts are also being introduced.

  With the aim of reducing the regulatory cost to SMEs in raising risk capital from individuals, the Government have consulted, and are considering responses, on whether to create specific exemptions from the prohibition on financial promotion for defined classes of "high net worth individuals" and "sophisticated investors". This would enable smaller companies and others to communicate more easily with potential investors who are able and willing to invest without the standard protection offered by financial services legislation.

  For institutional funds, the Government are creating a series of public-private partnerships to stimulate the supply of small scale and early stage venture capital across the UK's regions. The Department of Trade and Industry's Small Business Service (SBS) is in the process of establishing a UK High Technology Fund with a target size of £120 million, using a £20 million Government investment to lever in further capital from UK pension funds and other institutional investors. The SBS is also supporting the creation of a network of Regional Venture Capital Funds across the English regions. These will enable institutional funds and banks to invest, with SBS

  271W
  support, in venture funds which will specialise in financing the growth of smaller companies in particular regions.

  The Chancellor announced in this Budget a further £100 million of Government funding for this activity over the next three years, with the aim of creating a £1 billion target umbrella fund by levering in significant additional amounts of private investment capital. The umbrella fund will encompass the public-private partnerships currently being established, along with further regional funds. SBS will work with the Regional Development Agencies and a new Small Business Investment Task Force to strengthen the risk capital market for SMEs through this programme.

  In addition to creating specific incentives to encourage institutional funds to invest in certain types of risk capital, the Government are also concerned to understand whether there are factors encouraging institutional investors to follow industry-standard investment patterns which focus on quoted equities and gilts. The Chancellor has asked Paul Myners, Chairman of Gartmore investment managers, to conduct a review of institutional investment, to consider this and other issues, which will report back by Budget 2001.

  To encourage UK companies to become more active risk capital investors in SMEs with growth potential, the Finance Bill introduces a new corporate venturing scheme. This will provide relief against corporation tax where a company takes a minority shareholding for a minimum period in a smaller higher risk trading company. It is likely to be particularly useful for high technology SMEs which can benefit from the investment and other non-financial support of larger companies operating in similar technology fields.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is invested in venture capital in the UK as a percentage of all pension funds; and what are the comparable figures for the USA. [124757]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Definitions of venture capital vary between countries: the UK definition normally includes leveraged buyout funds, whereas the US definition does not. In both countries, figures are based on surveys of some, rather than all pension funds and are therefore not precise.

  The British Venture Capital Association has calculated figures based on the 1999 Annual Survey of the National Association of Pension Funds. According to these calculations, approximately 0.6 per cent. of the assets of those pension funds who responded to the Survey were invested in a broad definition of venture capital. A survey of 189 pension funds in the US (Source: Report on Alternative Investing by Tax Exempt Organisations 1999, Goldman Sachs and Frank Russell Company) showed 116 of them investing in alternative assets. Those 116 funds invested 6 per cent. of their assets in venture capital and leveraged buyout funds.

  Tax Allowances
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the benefits of introducing a system of tax allowances for entrepreneurial new companies. [124760]
  272W
  Mr. Timms
  The Government are introducing a wide range of initiatives that will benefit entrepreneurial new companies. Small companies will benefit from the new 10 per cent. starting rate for Corporation Tax. R&D tax credits will encourage innovation by small and medium-sized companies. They increase tax relief for R&D spending, and companies not in profit such as start-up ventures, can take the relief up front as a cash payment. The Corporate Venturing Scheme will encourage companies to invest in small, higher-risk trading companies. The investment will attract corporation tax relief at 20 per cent. Enterprise Management Incentives will make it easier for new companies to attract and retain the best people. Companies can reward key staff with share options free of income tax and national insurance charges. The development of each of these three schemes has involved detailed consultation with businesses and representative bodies. All three have been welcomed.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the increase in capital gains tax on share options in each year since 1996. [124759]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on the exercise of share options. CGT may be payable when shares acquired on exercise of the options are sold if the gains exceed the annual exempt amount. The effective rate of CGT depends on the size of the gain, whether the shares were business or non-business assets, and how long the shares have been held. The effect of taper relief is to reduce the tax on gains the longer the shares are held. CGT taper relief normally runs from the date that the shares were acquired.

  The November 1999 Pre-Budget Report announced the intention to make further improvements in CGT in order to promote productivity. Following consultation, the Budget announced proposals to improve the CGT treatment of shares owned by employees and officers in the trading companies in which they work. For periods from 6 April 2000 such shares will be treated as business assets, and will benefit from more generous taper rates. Business asset treatment applies whether the shares were acquired through share options or by other means.

  The Government are introducing in the current Finance Bill two new employee share plans. Under the All Employee Share Plan, employees who keep their shares in the plan until they sell them will have no CGT to pay however great the increase in value of those shares. In addition, under the Enterprise Management Incentive (EMI) scheme, companies will be able to grant each of their key employees share options worth up to £100,000, normally without any Income Tax or National Insurance charge on exercise. When the shares are sold, CGT taper relief will normally start from the date the options were granted.

  Tobin Tax Initiative
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with financial organisations on the(a) viability and (b) acceptability of the Tobin Tax initiative. [123179]
  273W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor meets regularly with members of the international financial community to discuss a range of measures designed to reduce currency market instability.

  The Government believe the Tobin tax idea is, in principle, interesting, but has a number of practical drawbacks. In particular, it could introduce serious economic distortions to the international financial system, and is unlikely to have much effect in a crisis. It would be practically impossible to achieve global coverage, and there would be huge scope for avoidance.

  Child Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax relief is available to companies which wish to help their employees with child care; and if he will make a statement. [124778]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Employers can get tax relief, under the normal business tax rules, for their day-to-day expenditure on child care provision for employees' children, whether given directly or indirectly. The relief is given by deducting such expenditure when working out their business profit for tax purposes.

  They can also claim relief through the capital allowances system for certain capital expenditure on furnishing and equipping nurseries and playschemes (and for the buildings if the employer is carrying on a qualifying trade in the industrial sector).

  Royal Taxation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to paragraph 20 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation, if an inventory exists to distinguish assets held by the Queen(a) as Sovereign and (b) as a private individual. [124214]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]There is a computerised inventory of the Royal Collection which identifies assets held by the Queen as Sovereign and as a private individual.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason inheritance tax is not payable on private possessions passed from one sovereign to the next. [124212]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The tax arrangements for the Queen and Prince of Wales are set out in the Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation, attached to the Report of the Royal Trustees published on 11 February 1993 (HC 464).

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what variations have been notified under paragraphs 33 to 35 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation; [124216]

  (2) on how many occasions a disagreement has occurred under the terms of paragraph 31 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation. [124215]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Amendments to the original Memorandum of Understanding were announced in October 1996 to reflect changes in the arrangements for paying tax under self-assessment.
  274W
  A copy of the amended Memorandum was placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The normal rules of taxpayer confidentiality apply to matters under paragraph 31 of the Memorandum of Understanding.

  Royal Trustees
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Royal Trustees and the dates on which they have met since 1 May 1997. [124421]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Under the Civil List Act 1952, the Royal Trustees are designated to be those holding the offices of First Commissioner of HM Treasury (the Prime Minister), the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of HM Privy Purse. Consequently the current Royal Trustees are:

  The right hon. Tony Blair MP

  The right hon. Gordon Brown MP

  Sir Michael Peat KCVO.

  No formal meeting of the Royal Trustees has occurred since 1 May 1997, but regular communications are maintained through their officials and through correspondence.

  Royal Collection
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax position in respect of the Royal Collection. [124213]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The Royal Collection is administered under the terms of a charitable trust. The tax treatment is the same as for any other charitable trust.

  Free Television Licenses
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the basis of his oral statement of 6 April 2000,Official Report, column 1137, that 11,000 pensioners in the Christchurch constituency will receive free colour television licences. [123919]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The basis of the Chancellor's oral statement to the House on 6 April was his Pre-Budget Report announcement in November 1999 that free TV licences will be available to all pensioners aged 75 and over from autumn 2000.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what analysis has been(a) carried out and (b) published by the Government on the price sensitivity of demand for primary aggregates and to quantify the impact of the proposed aggregates tax on demand for primary aggregates; [124440]

  (2) what analysis has been (a) carried out and (b) published by the Government about price sensitivity of demand for recycled and secondary aggregates and to quantify the impact of the proposed aggregates tax on demand for recycled and secondary aggregates. [124441]
  275W
  Mr. Timms
  The estimated impact of the proposed aggregates levy on the demand for aggregates is given in the Aggregates Levy Regulatory Impact Assessment, published on 21 March 2000.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment has been made by the Government about the impact of an aggregates tax on total vehicle mileage involved in the supply of aggregates from all sources of supply; [124432]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the impact of an aggregates tax on the volume of aggregates transported by Rail Freight. [124433]

  Mr. Timms
  The introduction of the aggregates levy will make the price of aggregates better reflect their true social and environmental costs and encourage the use of recycled aggregates. We do not expect there to be a significant impact on the transportation of aggregates.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households in(a) Scotland, (b) East Ayrshire and (c) Kilmarnock and Loudoun are eligible for the working families tax credit which are (i) single parent families where the woman is the sole earner, (ii) single parent families where the man is the sole earner, (iii) couples where the male is the sole earner, (iv) couples where the female is the sole earner and (v) dual-income families. [124652]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that 98,800 families in Scotland have been awarded the Working Families Tax Credit to the end of March 2000, of which 3,300 were in the East Ayrshire local authority and 1,700 were in Kilmarnock and Loudoun parliamentary constituency.

  The breakdowns requested are as follows:

  Family type

  Scotland

  East Ayrshire

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  Single parent—female earner

  61,100

  1,700

  900

  Single parent—male earner

  2,100

  1—

  1—

  Couple—male sole earner

  21,800

  1,000

  600

  Couple—female sole earner

  8,500

  1—

  1—

  Couple—both earning

  5,400

  1—

  1—

  Total

  98,800

  3,300

  1,700

  1 There are two few cases in the 5 per cent. sample used for these analyses to provide a complete breakdown for East Ayrshire, or for Kilmarnock and Loudoun.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2000,Official Report, column 361W, on ministerial meetings, how many formal meetings he has had over the last two years with representatives of (a) farming unions, (b) the Country Landowners' Association, (c) the Country Sports Organisation and (d) pensioners' groups. [124577]

  The Prime Minister
  As I made clear in my earlier answer, I have met pensioners and countryside representatives at No.10 in the course of my official duties as well as during my visits throughout the country, and will continue to do so.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 June. [124330]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I delivered a speech to the Women's Institute Conference and had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

SCOTLAND

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123743]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]From May 1997 to June 1999, the Scottish Office had 14 laptops stolen and five were lost.

  Since 1 July 1999, one laptop used by a Scotland Office official was stolen.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000,Official Report, columns 279–80W, concerning secondments, which of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124819]

  Dr. Reid
  The following secondments from the Scotland Office were for periods of 12 months or less:

  Private Sector Secondments

  May 1997 to April 1998

  May 1998 to April 1999

  May 1999 to June 1999

  Balfour and Manson

  1

  1

  0

  BP

  1

  —

  —

  Shepperd & Wedderburn

  —

  1

  —

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 February 2000,Official Report, column 203W, concerning contracts, if he will list the companies concerned; and whether these contacts were subject to competitive tendering. [124824]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  RUC Investigations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following reports on the night of 7–8 August of attacks upon(a) the Presbyterian church hall in Ballyroney, County Down,

  277W
  (b) the Orange hall in Ballyroney, County Down and (c) the Free Presbyterian church; in each case, how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions, what conclusions he has reached on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105463]

  Mr. Ingram
  (a) and (b) Police were assigned from Banbridge at 0711hrs on 8 August and arrived 0747hrs.

  (c) Police were assigned from Castlewellan at approximately 1130hrs. on 8 August and arrived approximately 20 minutes later.

  No estimate of the cost of damage is available. There is no record of similar incidents in the area. The attacks may be linked on an 0700hrs. service held on 11 July commemorating the 150th Battle of Dolly's Brae. The number of perpetrators is not known but they are believed to be from a Nationalist background. The investigation remains open.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of a petrol bomb attack on a property in Ligoniel, north Belfast on 13 August 1999; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105446]

  Mr. Ingram
  This incident was reported at 0403hrs. Police attended the scene at 0420hrs., having checked the authenticity of the call. There is no estimate of the cost of damage which was slight because the petrol did not ignite. There have been no similar incidents in the area although a brick was thrown at the window of this house on 9 August. It is not thought that parades had any bearing. The community affiliation of the perpetrators is not known. The investigation is ongoing.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of an attack on the BT Target Sports Club near Loughbrickland, County Down, on 22 August 1999; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what beating controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105437]

  Mr. Ingram
  There was no attack at this location on 22 August 1999. However there was an attack on the night of 4 August. That incident was reported at 0059hrs. Police arrived on the scene at 0110hrs. Damage to a tracked excavator has been estimated at £29,000. There have been no similar incidents in the area. Parades are not believed to have had a bearing. The community affiliation of the perpetrator(s) is not known. The investigation remains open but is subject to further information becoming available.
  278W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of a pipe bomb attack on property in Sallagh Park South, Larne, on 30 August 1999; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105444]

  Mr. Ingram
  This incident was reported at 0106 hrs. Police arrived on the scene at 0107 hrs. There was no apparent damage. There have been a number of similar attacks in the area. It is not thought that parades had any bearing. The attack is believed to have been carried out by Loyalists. The investigation is ongoing.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of a pipe bomb being discovered at St. Peter the Rock church, Lisburn, on 29 August 1999; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105442]

  Mr. Ingram
  This incident was reported at 1936 hrs. Police attended the scene at 2003 hrs. having verified the authenticity of the call. There was no damage. There have been similar incidents in the area. It is believed that the perpetrators may be Loyalist. It is not thought that parades had any bearing. The investigation is ongoing.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of an assault on a woman in Kilkeel on 14 August 1999; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what injuries were sustained as a result of the attack; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105447]

  Mr. Ingram
  Three men have been charged and are due to appear in court in connection with this incident. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment further.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of an attack on St. Mary's Gaelic Athletic Association club in Ahoghill, County Antrim, on 29 August 1999; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached so far on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105441]

  Mr. Ingram
  This incident was reported at 0307 hrs. Police arrived on the scene at 0320 hrs. Damage was extensive but an estimate of cost has not yet been received. There have been a number of similar incidents
  279W
  in the area. It is not thought that parades had a bearing. The attack is believed to have been carried out by Loyalists. The investigation is ongoing.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of an attack on a Church of Ireland hall in Strabane on 15 August 1999; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached so far on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105448]

  Mr. Ingram
  Police saw smoke coming from the hall and took appropriate action. No estimate of damage has yet been received. There have been six previously recorded incidents involving arson of places of worship in the area between 1995 and 1998. It is not thought that parades had any bearing. The attack is believed to have been carried out by Nationalists. The investigation remains open.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of attacks on property and residents on Craigwell Avenue, Portadown, on 17 August; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; what is the present stage of the investigation; and what is his estimate of the number of families that have moved out of the area or sought rehousing as a consequence of community tensions in the past four years. [105436]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no record of any such incidents on or about the date given. It is not possible to give the numbers of families who may have moved from the area because of community tensions; however, there have been 12 successful SPED applications during the last four years.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of a serious assault upon a 16 year-old boy from the Lower Ormeau Road, Belfast, on 26 August 1999; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached so far on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105439]

  Mr. Ingram
  When the assault by occupants of a vehicle was reported, police immediately circulated the limited details of the vehicle which was not located. The scene was visited and potential witnesses were interviewed but no further evidence came to light. There is nothing to suggest that this was a sectarian attack. There have been no recent incidents of this type in the area. Parades in the area have caused tension but it is not thought that they had a bearing on the incident. The community affiliation of the three assailants is not known. The investigation remains open but is dependent on additional information becoming available.
  280W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of a paint bomb attack on a property on the Curryneirin estate, Deny, on 15 August 1999; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105449]

  Mr. Ingram
  This incident was reported at 0104hrs. Because of incidents of serious disorder that evening, including hijacking, criminal damage and intimidation, police were unable to attend the scene until 0303hrs. Damage to property is estimated at £800. It is not thought that parades had any bearing. Police believe the perpetrators may have been Nationalists. The investigation remains open.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of an attack on Ryan's Presbyterian church hall outside Rathfriland, Co. Down, on 9 August 1999; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105445]

  Mr. Ingram
  This incident was reported at 0238hrs. Police arrived on the scene at 0247hrs. Damage is estimated at £109,995. There are no recently recorded similar incidents in the area. Parades are not believed to have had a bearing. The community affiliation of the perpetrator(s) is not known. The investigation is ongoing.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of a petrol bomb attack on a residential property in the early hours of 9 August; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105464]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is assumed that this question refers to an incident at Hampton Crescent, Larne, on 9 August 1999. This incident was reported at 0316hrs. Police arrived on the scene at 0318hrs. No estimate of the cost of the damage is available. There have been a number of similar attacks in the area. It is not thought that parades had a bearing. The attack is believed to have been carried out by Loyalists. The investigation is ongoing.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of an attack on the home of councillor Danny O'Connor in Larne, on 28 August 1999; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what bearing controversial parades have on these actions; what conclusions he has reached
  281W
  so far on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105440]

  Mr. Ingram
  This incident was reported at 0434hrs. Police arrived on the scene at 0437hrs. No damage was caused. There have been a number of similar attacks in the area. It is not thought that parades had any bearing. The attack is believed to have been carried out by Loyalists. The investigation is ongoing.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of an attack on the home of Mr. Kevin O'Connor in Larne on 30 August 1999; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what conclusions he has reached on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105443]

  Mr. Ingram
  This incident was reported at 0916hrs. Police arrived on the scene at 0922hrs. There was scorch damage to the area of the hallway and fine nails embedded in a wall. No estimate of the damage is currently available. The attack is believed to have been carried out by Loyalists. The investigation remains open.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the report of attacks on vehicles and properties on the Shankill Road, Belfast, on the night of 30–31 July; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; what is his estimate of the damage to property; what record of similar incidents exists in that area; what conclusions he has reached so far on the number and community affiliation of the perpetrators; and what is the present stage of the investigation. [105460]

  Mr. Ingram
  Police have no records of any attacks of the type described.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following reports of an incident on Craigwell Avenue, Portadown, on 31 July; how long it took for police to arrive on the scene; how many shots were fired; what conclusions he has reached on the community affiliation of the perpetrator; how many persons were(a) arrested and (b) charged; and what is the present stage of proceedings. [105461]

  Mr. Ingram
  A man has been charged and is due to appear in court in connection with this incident. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment further.

  Tourist Intimidation (Bushmills)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC has taken to respond to reports of verbal abuse and intimidation of tourists in the Bushmills area, County Antrim; and how many meetings have been held with the Bushmills Community Association in the past 12 months. [105438]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no reports of verbal abuse or intimidation reported to the police. There have been six meetings with the Bushmills Community Association in the last year.

  Hurling Summer Scheme
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the RUC took following the Irish News newspaper report of 5 August concerning threats received by organisers and children participating in a hurling summer scheme to have taken place on the O'Neill Park, Dungannon; when the police first learned of the threats against the scheme; and what measures were taken to address the community relations aspects of this incident. [105462]

  Mr. Ingram
  As a result of information on 3 August, police personally informed two representatives of the Gaelic Athletic Association at O'Neill Park that day and a third representative on 4 August of a possible threat to the summer scheme. Appropriate crime prevention and security advice was given and all police patrols were briefed to give attention to the area at the times given by GAA representatives.

  Robert Hamill and Gregory Girvan
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary into the assault on Gregory Girvan in Portadown town centre on 27 April 1997. [119711]

  Mr. Ingram
  A file was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions on the 31 July 1997 in respect of this assault. However, he directed that there was insufficient evidence to press charges. The investigation therefore remains open and I would implore anyone who has not already done so to contact the police and provide whatever information they can to assist in catching those responsible for this despicable crime.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list by rank and the time at which they attended, those officers above the rank of constable who attended the scene of the assaults on Robert Hamill and Gregory Girvan in Portadown town centre on 27 April 1997; [119713]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2000, Official Report, column 32W, on Robert Hamill, for what reasons police did not cordon off the location of the attack on Robert Hamill in Portadown on 27 April 1997 until 07.27 hours. [119714]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Independent Commission for Police Complaints are actively considering whether disciplinary proceedings will be instigated against police officers in this particular case and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment on such details at this time.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the applications for judicial review of a decision of the Parades Commission since its creation, in each case describing the(a) issue involved, (b) the result of the application hearing and (c) the result of the substantive hearing and summarising of the findings of the Court. [124107]
  283W
  Mr. Ingram
  To date there have been five occasions when applications for judicial review have been made on determinations made by the Parades Commission:

  1. Ormeau Road parade on 13 July 1998:

  (a) The Commission's decision not to impose route restrictions on the Orange Order parade was the subject of an application for judicial review on 7 July 1998. The grounds of the application were that, in not prohibiting the parade from parading on the Lower Ormeau Road as it had done in relation to previous parades, the Commission had exceeded its statutory powers. It was argued that the functions of the Commission were the balancing of local interests, and that the meaning of "community" in the Public Processions Act 1998 was confined to the people living in the area through which it was proposed that the parade should pass. The Commission could not, therefore, come to a different conclusion in relation to the 13 July parade if, as it was bound to do, it restricted itself to local considerations.

  (b) The application was dismissed. The decision, when appealed, was upheld.

  (c) No substantive hearing.

  2. Apprentice Boys Parade in Dunloy on 8 August 1998:

  (a) The Commission's decision not to permit the Dunloy Apprentice Boys to parade through the village of Dunloy was the subject of an application for judicial review on 6 August 1998. The grounds of the application were, among others, that the Commission had failed to distinguish the various groups which are commonly described as the 'loyal orders' and had imposed an obligation on those loyal orders to engage with the local community. This, it was argued, had fettered the Apprentice Boys discretion.

  (b) The application was dismissed.

  (c) No substantive hearing.

  3. Parkmount Junior LOL No. 150 parade in Portadown on 29 May 1999:

  (a) The Commission's decision not to impose conditions on the parade along a section of the lower end of Garvaghy Road in Portadown was the subject of an application for judicial review on 27 May 1999. The grounds for the application were that in deciding not to impose conditions the Commission had not acted in accordance with its own procedures.

  (b) Leave to apply was not granted. The applicant appealed the decision and the Court of Appeal subsequently granted leave and heard and determined the application.

  (c) The judgment found that the Commission had taken into account relevant factors, and had not taken into account irrelevant factors, and that the decision to impose no restrictions was lawful, procedurally proper and reasonable in the circumstances.

  4. Long March Parade on 3 July 1999 (Lurgan to Portadown):

  (a) The Commission's decision to re-route that part of the march notified to pass through Lurgan was the subject of an application for leave to apply for a judicial review on 2 July 1999. The grounds for the application were that the Commission had not complied with its own procedures in failing to consult with the organiser of the march in order to facilitate mediation.

  (b) The court considered that the Commission had not acted "in a way which was clearly outside its powers or contrary to its prescribed procedure". The application was refused. The applicant appealed the decision on 2 November 1999. A preliminary hearing was held on 8 November 1999, and the substantive hearing on 1 December 1999. The appeal was dismissed.

  (c) Dismissed on invitation of appellant's counsel.

  5. St. Patrick's Day parades in Kilkeel on 17 March 2000:

  (a) The Commission's decision to permit parades by two nationalist bands to proceed along their notified route was the subject for an application for a judicial review on 16 March
  284W
  2000. The ground for the application was that the Commission had failed to comply with its procedures in not consulting widely enough to gain sufficient information on which to base its decision. It had therefore failed to take into account previous disorder in relation to the parade, and to consider the adverse impact of the parade on community relations, and had not advised anyone that "they were minded to alter the status which had existed for over 20 years".

  (b) The judge agreed, in view of the time constraints, that he would deal with both the leave application, and if this were successful, the substantive hearing. The Court held that the Commission had not acted outside its powers or contrary to its procedures, and the application was dismissed.

  (c) No substantive hearing.

  RUC Personnel
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the composition by gender and perceived community origin of the(a) RUC Special Branch and (b) RUC Criminal Investigation Department. [123956]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table details the current composition by gender and perceived community background of the RUC Special Branch and RUC Criminal Investigation Department:

  Special Branch

  CID

  Male

  739

  886

  Female

  88

  150

  Perceived Protestant

  762

  898

  Perceived Roman Catholic

  54

  98

  Undetermined

  21

  40

  It should be noted that these figures include all police officers in both Departments, unlike the answers given on 10 February 2000, Official Report, column 239W, and on 11 February 2000, Official Report, column 322W, which only stipulated the number of officers with detective status in RUC Special Branch and CID.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the process of selection and entry requirement for officers to serve in the(a) RUC Special Branch and (b) RUC Criminal Investigation Department. [123955]

  Mr. Ingram
  Vacancies in the ranks of Constable to Inspector are circulated throughout the force in accordance with force orders. Applicants, who must have completed their probationary period, are required to complete an application form and receive a line manager's recommendation before being interviewed by a selection panel consisting of officers of at least Chief Inspector rank, one of whom is from the specialism involved. The Chairman of the panel is always from outside the specialism. Successful candidates undergo a one-year aideship and only on successful completion will an appointment to the branches be made permanent. Appointments at the ranks of Chief Inspector and above are the responsibility of Force Command, advised by Personnel Branch, who consider the number of vacancies and the policing experience of potential appointees before making recommendations.

  RUC (Compensation Claims)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a breakdown from
  285W
  (a) 1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999 and (b) 1 May 1999 to 30 April 2000 of compensation claims against the RUC broken down into (i) new claims, (ii) claims disposed of, (iii) damages paid, (iv) plaintiff's solicitor's costs, (v) Crown solicitor's costs and (vi) Crown solicitor's outlay. [123884]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table provides a breakdown of costs associated with compensation claims against the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It should be noted that the figures cover the 1998–99 and 1999–2000 financial years.

  April 1998 to March 1999

  April 1999 to March 2000

  New Claims

  654

  693

  Claims disposed of

  480

  365

  Damages paid (£)

  1,046,115

  1,127,632

  Plaintiff's solicitor's costs (£)

  619,885

  668,050

  Crown Solicitor's costs (£)

  735,637

  900,738

  Crown Solicitor's outlay (£)

  408,159

  386,033

  RUC (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland(a) if he will set out the stages of disciplinary proceedings in the RUC from initial complaint to final outcome, (b) what considerations affect the time taken for the completion of each stage in the procedure, (c) when procedures were last reviewed and (d) what proposals have been adopted in the past five years to enhance the prompt and efficient administration of the system. [124106]

  Mr. Ingram
  The various stages of disciplinary proceedings are contained within The Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints etc.) Regulations 1988, The Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints)(Informal Resolution) 1988, The Royal Ulster Constabulary (Discipline and Disciplinary Appeals) Regulations 1988, The Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve (Part-Time)(Discipline and Disciplinary Appeals) Regulations 1988 and Guidance to the Chief Constable of Police Complaints and Discipline Procedures.

  Decisions/submissions

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Initial claim decisions

  503,170

  515,795

  466,960

  383,794

  371,431

  Renewal decisions

  154,102

  167,794

  176,164

  194,579

  185,518

  Reviews inside time2

  165,367

  188,548

  210,256

  173,832

  160,349

  Reviews outside time3

  167,594

  170,786

  159,798

  126,964

  116,234

  Appeal submissions

  33,761

  39,323

  48,047

  46,986

  46,574

  1 Figures for January were estimated for initial claims, renewals and reviews.

  2 Figures include reconsiderations under the new decision making process from October 1999.

  3 Figures include supersessions under the new decision making process from October 1999.

  4 Some reviews and appeals relate to claims made or reviewed in the previous year. It is therefore not possible to provide the exact proportion of the claims made in any year which proceed to review or appeal.

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 100 per cent. data.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of each rate of Disability Living Allowance there have been in each of the last five years. [124711]
  286W
  The time taken to complete each stage of the disciplinary procedure is affected by many factors, including the nature and extent of the allegations, the complexity and availability of evidence, the resources devoted to the investigation, the progress of related criminal or civil proceedings and the level and nature of co-operation afforded by the complainant.

  A comprehensive review of the police complaints system in Northern Ireland was carried out by Dr. Maurice Hayes, who published his report in January 1997. The present Independent Commission for Police Complaints will be replaced by the Office of the Police Ombudsman on 1 October 2000. The Police Ombudsman will receive and investigate all complaints about the police and will make recommendations for criminal and disciplinary action.

  Garvaghy Road
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what undertakings he has entered into in relation to parades in the vicinity of Garvaghy Road, Portadown on 9 July with(a) the Orange Order, (b) the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition, (c) political parties and (d) the Irish Government. [123954]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the absence of a local agreement, it is entirely the responsibility of the Parades Commission to decide whether or not to allow a parade to take place, or to impose restrictions.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of decisions by adjudication officers and decision makers on Disability Living Allowance have proceeded to (i) review stage and (ii) an independent appeal tribunal in each of the last five years. [124707]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.
  287W

  Disability Living Allowance:recipients by rate and year

  Thousand

  Components and rates

  1995–961

  1996–971

  1997–981

  1998–991

  1999–20001

  All awards2

  1,589

  1,768

  1,926

  2,014

  2,084

  Higher rate care

  290

  336

  369

  383

  396

  Middle rate care

  418

  487

  543

  567

  599

  Lower rate care

  287

  348

  405

  451

  488

  Higher rate mobility

  1,126

  1,229

  1,313

  1,342

  1,360

  Lower rate mobility

  272

  327

  378

  415

  448

  1 Figures based on five per cent. data relating to 31 August

  2 Columns do not sum because many claimants are awarded both care and mobility components

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money has been paid out in Disability Living Allowance there have been in each of the last five years. [124712]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  >Disability Living Allowance:expenditure by year

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  3,802

  1996–97

  4,498

  1997–98

  4,953

  1998–99

  5,336

  1999–20001

  5,630

  Raising age limit of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) mobility component

  to age 70

  to age 75

  to age 80

  Cost (£ billion)

  Gainers (Million)

  (£ billion)

  Gainers (Million)

  (£ billion)

  Gainers (Million)

  2001–02

  0.3

  0.15

  0.8

  0.4

  1.4

  0.75

  2002–03

  0.4

  0.2

  0.9

  0.45

  1.6

  0.75

  2003–04

  0.4

  0.2

  1.0

  0.45

  1.7

  0.8

  2004–05

  0.5

  0.25

  1.0

  0.5

  1.8

  0.85

  2005–06

  0.5

  0.25

  1.1

  0.5

  1.9

  0.85

  Notes:

  1. Costs are in cash prices and rounded to nearest hundred million and number of gainers rounded to the nearest fifty thousand.

  2. Estimates derived from model of entitlement based on 1996–97 Disability Survey and forecast caseloads.

  3. Estimates are subject to a significant margin of error underlying uncertainties of modelling entitlement from available survey data. It is assumed that cases leave the benefit at an average rate for all DLA mobility cases.

  4. Estimated costs include effects on income-related benefits.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the(a) cost and (b) number of beneficiaries, in each of the next five years, of removing the upper age limit for the Disability Living Allowance (i) mobility component and (ii) lower rate care component. [124687]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated cost of and numbers of gainers from abolition of upper age limit for Disability Living Allowance mobility component and care component

  Cost of extending mobility component (£ billion)

  Gainers (million)

  Cost of extending care component (£ billion)

  Gainers (million)

  2001–02

  2.6

  1.30

  0.2

  0.30

  2002–03

  2.7

  1.35

  0.2

  0.30

  2003–04

  2.8

  1.35

  0.3

  0.30

  2004–05

  3.0

  1.40

  0.3

  0.30

  2005–06

  3.1

  1.45

  0.3

  0.30

  288W

  1 Figure estimated

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the(a) cost and (b) number of beneficiaries, in each of the next five years, of raising the upper age limit to (a) 70, (b) 75 and (c) 80 years for the Disability Living Allowance mobility component. [124688]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the tables.

  Notes:

  1. Costs are in cash prices and rounded to nearest 100 million and number of gainers rounded to the nearest 50,000.

  2. Estimates derived from model of entitlement based on 1996–97 Disability Survey and forecast case loads.

  3. Estimates are subject to a significant margin of error reflecting underlying uncertainties of modelling entitlement from available survey data.

  4. Estimated costs include effects on income related benefits.

  Social Security Numbers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that social security numbers are given to the right person and linked to the right department; what is the cost of this; how many incidents in the years(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 were found where people were (i) allocated and (ii) used the wrong national insurance number; and if he will make a statement. [124557]

  Mr. Rooker
  The National Insurance Number (NINO) exists to allow this Department and the Inland Revenue to differentiate accurately between the millions of people
  289W
  who do business with them. When a person applies for a NINO, the Department checks its records to see that a NINO has not already been issued and then interviews the person to confirm identity. The interviewer checks the person's circumstances, background and history by asking questions. Answers are confirmed and any documents produced as evidence are authenticated before a NINO is allocated.

  The current annual cost of allocating NINOs is £5.4 million.

  The total number of NINOs allocated in 1998 was 272,844 compared with 284,144 for 1999. Inevitably, with these volumes, the system is subject to instances of existing numbers not being traced correctly and duplicate accounts being created in error. Unfortunately, data on wrongly allocated NINOs are not available in the format requested. However, in order to address this issue the Department has established a comprehensive programme of data cleansing.

  The Identity Fraud Unit has recorded 1,314 false NINOs and accounts since it was established in 1997.

  The Department is committed to ensuring that NINOs are issued, used and controlled consistently. Our overall aim is to always establish the correct identity of a person prior to providing a benefit or service to ensure that we are dealing with the right person. We will continue to develop and implement strategies that enable us to achieve this aim.

  Non-local Offices
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate of the annual savings to the social security budget of the disposal of non-local offices from London in each of the last five years. [124401]

  Mr. Rooker
  Prior to 1 April 1998 and within the last five years, the Department vacated only one "non-local office1" in the London area, where it was the major Government occupier. This was Euston Tower, but being a leasehold building there was no disposal value; savings simply accrued through the discontinuance of rent, rates and the service charge.

  On 31 March 1995, an initial release of space at Euston Tower produced net annual savings of £436,694, after the deduction of additional occupation costs following relocation of the Headquarters staff involved to the Adelphi. The final moves, involving a number of units, took place in 1996. The net annual savings after relocation were in the region of £1.4 million.

  On 1 April 1998 the Department subsequently transferred all of its property, both freehold and leasehold, to the private sector consortium Trillium plc under the PRIME Agreement. We now no longer own nor rent any buildings. Instead, serviced office accommodation is purchased from Trillium. So now, if we withdraw entirely from a building, or hand back only a proportion of our space, it is for Trillium to dispose of.

  In the two years since the PRIME contract began, as part of estates strategies in the London area, the Department has handed back some 45,431m2 of space in both local office and non-local office buildings. However, the only buildings that we have withdrawn from entirely
  290W
  are local office buildings. Consideration is presently being given also to taking on additional space elsewhere in London.

  Note:

  1. A non-local office has been defined as a building without public caller facilities.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 213W, concerning secondments, which of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124820]

  Mr. Rooker
  All three of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less.

  Benefits Agency
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to improve the quality and accuracy of postcode data with the Analytical Services Division within the Benefits Agency. [124686]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department's Analytical Services Division currently produces a range of local level information by matching a claimant's postcode against the Office for National Statistics postcode directory for the key benefits including Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance and Incapacity Benefit. For some benefits, incomplete or missing postcode information makes such a process unreliable and work to improve the accuracy of this information is ongoing. For example, August 1999 Child Benefit data were recently enhanced through the imputation of postcode from claimant address details. A final phase of work to match this against the 2000 postcode directory will soon result in the production of reliable small area estimates for child benefit for the first time.

  A copy of the child benefit data for all parliamentary constituencies will be placed in the Houses of Parliament Libraries by the end of July 2000.

  Pension Funds
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the minimum funding requirements for pension funds with reference to venture capital. [124756]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Minimum Funding Requirement (MFR) does not prescribe how pension funds should invest their assets. Investment practice is a matter for pension schemes. The MFR is intended to provide a reasonable level of security for members in the event of the employer becoming insolvent and requires defined benefit schemes to hold a minimum level of assets to meet their liabilities valued according to a prescribed methodology. We have asked the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries to carry out a review of the minimum funding requirement and will be consulting shortly on the proposals in their report. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also asked Paul Myners to conduct a review of institutional investment which is considering this and other issues.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lord Levy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral answer of 11 April 2000,Official Report, column 179, if Lord Levy has held meetings with representatives of foreign (a) intelligence and (b) security agencies. [118947]

  Mr. Hain
  In line with long standing practice of successive Governments we do not comment on intelligence matters.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from which officials Lord Levy has received briefings on the Middle East. [119672]

  Mr. Hain
  Lord Levy has been briefed by officials responsible for the regional and bilateral issues on which he has passed messages from the Prime Minister, and by Ambassadors in the countries where he has passed such messages. As I know from having talked to the Ministers and others in these countries, his work is greatly appreciated and has helped enhance both Britain's standing and our contribution to the Middle East peace process.

  British Council
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British Council offices there were overseas on 1 April. [123376]

  Mr. Hain
  On 1 April there were 243 British Council offices overseas, in 110 countries.

  Joint Entry Clearance Unit
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Joint Entry Clearance Unit. [125245]

  Mr. Vaz
  As I told the House on 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 833–36, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office have signed a Memorandum of Understanding on the establishment of the Joint Entry Clearance Unit (the JECU). Copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This week the JECU has moved to its new offices at 89 Albert Embankment. By bringing together Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office expertise in a single unit, it will provide a better co-ordinated and more effective service to entry clearance applicants. More information about the new Unit, including contact numbers within it, will be circulated to Members.

  Export Licences (Iran)
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has recently authorised the issue of export licences for Iran as an exception to the national arms embargo. [125251]

  Mr. Hain
  We have recently issued, as an exception to the national arms embargo on Iran, an export licence for the export of night vision equipment for the use of Iranian drug enforcement personnel. This equipment has been procured by a private company on behalf of the UN Drugs 292W
  Control Programme (UNDCP) as a contribution to the UNDCP in Iran. These goods require a UK export licence as they are transiting the UK en route to Iran.

  The UK fully supports assistance for the considerable efforts being made by the Iranian authorities to stem the trafficking of drugs through Iran. Since early 1999 the UK has contributed £1.5 million to support Iranian counter drugs activity.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2000,Official Report, columns 337–38W, concerning secondments, which of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124822]

  Mr. Battle
  There were(a) 14 private sector staff who undertook secondments of 12 or less months to my Department between May 1997 and April 1998, (b) 11 between May 1998 and April 1999 and (c) 19 between May 1999 and February 2000.

  Overseas Territories
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which Overseas Territories legislatures have e-mail addresses; and which of these can he used to contact individual members of those legislatures; [124842]

  (2) when his Department will make an up-to-date list of members of all Overseas Territories legislatures, together with their point of contact, available in the Library; and if he will make it his Department's practice for this to be updated regularly. [124841]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is in the process of compiling a list of elected members of those Overseas Territories which have a legislature, together with contact details, including e-mail addresses where these exist. This will be placed in the House of Commons Library and will be updated after elections in the territories. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is in regular contact with elected members both in the UK and in the territories and provides a forum for direct liaison between the two.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the proposals outlined in the recent White Paper on Overseas Territories; and if he will make a statement. [124843]

  Mr. Battle
  Good progress has been made in key areas covered by the White Paper. Preparations for an Overseas Territories Bill granting British citizenship have reached an advanced stage; structured political dialogue has been effected by the establishment of an annual Consultative Council between. British and Overseas Territories Ministers; a process of constitutional modernisation has been initiated; a draft environmental charter has been distributed for consultation; capital and corporal punishment have been abolished in most territories, with agreement to do so in the others, and an independent review of the regulation of financial sectors in the Overseas Territories is being conducted by consultants.
  293W
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the visits made to each Overseas Territory by Ministers in

  Outward ministerial visits to the Overseas Territories since 1 May 1997

  Country

  Visitor

  Position held

  Date of visit

  Purpose of visit

  Montserrat

  Baroness Symons

  PUSS

  17 to 18 June 1997

  Official

  Montserrat

  Baroness Symons

  PUSS

  late June 1997

  Official

  Montserrat

  Robin Cook

  Secretary of State

  14 February 1998

  Official

  Falkland Islands

  Tony Lloyd

  Minister of State

  21 to 25 April 1998

  Official

  British Virgin Islands

  Baroness Symons

  PUSS1

  8 to 10 September 1998

  Official

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Baroness Symons

  PUSS

  10–11 September 1998

  Official

  Cayman Islands

  Baroness Symons

  PUSS

  18–20 January 1999

  Official

  Montserrat

  Baroness Scotland

  PUSS

  15–16 September 1999

  Official

  Bermuda

  Baroness Scotland

  PUSS

  8–11 March 2000

  Official

  1 Formally designated a Minister responsible for the Overseas Territories in July 1998

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the speeches and press releases and documents pertaining to the United Kingdom's bilateral and EU relations with Spain which have related to Gibraltar, since the recent agreement was reached with Spain on Gibraltar. [124835]

  Mr. Vaz
  A copy of the documents relating to the arrangements covering a number of issues within the European Union concerning Gibraltar which were agreed with Spain following extensive consultation with the Government of Gibraltar were placed in the Library of the House on 19 April 2000, and details were given to the House by the Foreign Secretary on the same day,Official Report, columns 499–500W. The Foreign Secretary's statement announcing the arrangements on 19 April will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information he has collected relating to the average time of waiting at the Spain-Gibraltar border for motor vehicles entering or leaving Gibraltar since the recent agreement reached with Spain on Gibraltar; [124834]

  (2) if he will list, for each day since the recent agreement with Spain about Gibraltar, the (a) longest and (b) average waiting time for vehicles entering or leaving Gibraltar. [124833]

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there has been a diminution of delays at the border between Gibraltar and Spain as a result of the recent Anglo-Spanish agreement. [124798]

  Mr. Vaz
  The border did not form part of the discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government, which concluded on 19 April, with the support of the Government of Gibraltar. The table shows maximum and average delay times for cars entering and leaving Gibraltar since 19 April, based on figures collated by the Royal Gibraltar Police.
  294W
  his Department since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [124840]

  Mr. Battle
  The information is in the table.

  Minutes

  Delay exiting Gibraltar

  Delay exiting Gibraltar

  Date

  Maximum

  Average

  Maximum

  Average

  April

  19

  75

  41

  30

  11

  20

  45

  31

  15

  5

  21

  20

  15

  20

  12

  22 Saturday

  45

  35

  60

  35

  23 Easter

  60

  40

  30

  5

  24 Bank Holiday

  60

  41

  20

  15

  25

  60

  41

  45

  14

  26

  60

  45

  45

  23

  27

  90

  43

  20

  3

  28

  90

  44

  45

  10

  29 Saturday

  75

  47

  60

  24

  30 Sunday

  75

  41

  75

  25

  May

  01 Bank Holiday

  75

  48

  60

  25

  02

  75

  52

  30

  6

  03

  75

  49

  30

  7

  04

  45

  33

  30

  5

  05

  90

  30

  60

  15

  06 Saturday

  90

  65

  30

  7

  07 Sunday

  60

  35

  15

  3

  08

  60

  45

  15

  5

  09

  45

  41

  25

  5

  10

  60

  31

  45

  9

  11

  75

  35

  40

  6

  12

  90

  34

  45

  10

  13 Saturday

  45

  32

  40

  9

  14 Sunday

  90

  54

  20

  2

  15

  90

  51

  20

  4

  16

  60

  37

  0

  0

  17

  120

  38

  45

  8

  18

  60

  43

  30

  5

  19

  90

  47

  45

  7

  20 Saturday

  75

  61

  20

  1

  21 Sunday

  180

  76

  0

  0

  22

  90

  47

  40

  7

  23

  75

  49

  20

  5

  24

  90

  40

  45

  7

  25

  75

  37

  20

  1

  26

  90

  44

  30

  4

  27 Saturday

  60

  36

  15

  2

  28 Sunday

  30

  12

  0

  0

  29 Bank Holiday

  30

  14

  30

  9

  30

  90

  39

  30

  6

  31

  90

  52

  45

  8

  June

  01

  60

  40

  20

  3

  02

  60

  33

  40

  8

  03 Saturday

  60

  40

  20

  5

  04 Sunday

  40

  28

  0

  0

  05

  90

  33

  30

  5

  Note

  Average delays are measured for the period 0900 to 2100, when most traffic crosses the border.
  295W
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role his Department will play in respect of matters covered by the recent Anglo-Spanish agreement. [124812]

  Mr. Vaz
  A United Kingdom Government/Gibraltar Liaison Unit for EU Affairs has been established in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibility for conveying formal communications between Gibraltar authorities and their counterparts in other EU member states under the new arrangements concerning Gibraltar competent authorities. The Department will also play a role in facilitating as necessary the implementation of other aspects of the various new arrangements, including the development of practical cooperation between the Royal Gibraltar Police and the Spanish police forces under the new police cooperation arrangements.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the visits made by himself or his ministers to Gibraltar within the last two years, stating the(a) purpose and (b) outcome of the visit. [124799]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) visited Gibraltar on 22–23 July 1999 and I visited on 18–19 May 2000.

  The main purpose of the visits was to enable Ministers responsible for Gibraltar to meet and hear the views of the people of Gibraltar and their elected representatives. This was achieved.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) also visited Gibraltar from 7–8 October 1997.

CABINET OFFICE

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many laptop computers used by 296W
  Ministers, officials and special advisers in her Department have been (a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123731]

  Mr. Stringer
  No laptop computers have been reported lost from my Department, excluding its agencies, since May 1997. Two laptop computers have been reported stolen.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 132W, concerning secondments, if the secondee to the Law Commission listed was appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124826]

  Mr. Lock
  The secondment in question lasted for less than 12 months.

  Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the members of the panel from which boards are drawn to determine cases under the vaccine damage payments scheme; what are their qualifications; and which members have registered links with pharmaceutical companies. [124754]

  Mr. Lock
  There are a number of legal and medical members. Legal members must be qualified lawyers of at least five years' standing. Medical members must have at least five years' experience treating patients as a fully registered medical practitioner in the UK or other EEA state, and in addition must either be on a specialist register maintained in the UK or other EEA state, or hold a vocational training certificate. In the time available, it has not been possible to collate all the information requested. When we have the information I will write to the hon. Member and put a copy of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

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

Women and Political Power
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What they will report to the United Nations Beijing + 5 conference on reforming the system for elections in the United Kingdom to secure for women an equal part in political power.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the immediate opportunity to report to the House on the UN Special Assembly on the Status of Women, from which I returned this morning. I was pleased to be able to describe considerable progress in the United Kingdom since the 1995 Beijing conference. Copies of the report, Equality in Practice, published by the Women's Unit with the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, together with my statement to the general assembly, will be placed in the Library.
On the specific issue of women's political representation, I was able to report that a record number of women had been elected to the House of Commons in 1997. In the new Northern Ireland Assembly only 13 per cent of the Members are women, but in the Scottish Parliament the percentage is 37 per cent and in the Welsh Assembly 40 per cent.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Perhaps I may ask what lessons she would draw from the elections in Wales and Scotland and, indeed, from the fact that throughout the world the top 10 national legislatures in terms of women's representation are those that have proportional representation, or a form of it, as their means of election. Perhaps I may further ask the Minister whether the Women's Unit will look specifically at the question of women's representation because so far it has not focused particularly on that as a part of its work. Finally, why was no local government representation allowed to be part of the UK delegation to New York for the Beijing + 5 conference when we are trying to encourage women councillors and representation of women at a local level where services impinge especially on them?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments on proportional representation. She will probably be aware that so far as concerns the Labour Party,
1116
specific methods were approved and adopted on the election of Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of the Welsh Assembly with the twinning of constituencies, which led to a large number of women being elected. Perhaps I may point out that 57 per cent of the Labour Members of the Welsh Assembly are women and 50 per cent of Labour MSPs are women. Therefore, methods other than proportional representation can achieve greater representation of the kind that she described.
As to trying to encourage women to become involved in public life, the Cabinet Office and the Women's Unit are conducting a series of workshops all around the country. One is being held tomorrow, for example, in Salford. I shall attend one in Devon next week precisely with the aim of encouraging women to become involved in local activity and then possibly proceed to elected office.
On the question of local government representation, I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that many groups were and are involved in the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action, and many of them have an interest in following that up. Quite frankly, it was impractical to include everyone who wished to attend. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware that the Women's National Commission, for example, was well represented and that there were representatives from the devolved institutions.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that encouraging a woman to go forward for political office is surely not the same as saying that she is being denied political power. Does the noble Baroness accept that some of us are rather mystified as to how and in what way women today are being denied political power in the way that the Question suggests?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, sotto voce from behind me someone says, "Not on this Front Bench"! I simply repeat that it is of course important to encourage people in an informal way to become engaged. That is the point of the exercise that I and various of my colleagues are conducting in order to bring women forward at local level to take part in public life. The noble Baroness will know that: there are targets. The Government have, for example, proposed a target for women to fill 50 per cent of public appointments within certain aspects of public life. In the health service, for example, that target has already reached 48 per cent. Therefore, I believe that opportunities exist and we all need to do everything we can to encourage people to take them up.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I declare an interest. I was on the advisory council to the United Nations Secretary-General for the first Beijing conference. Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House two questions after congratulating her on what she has just told us. First, as she is now looking at the matter of appointments, could she consider the substantial under-representation on appointments

1117
boards of women from ethnic minorities in this country? Secondly, I congratulate her on the Government's first tentative steps on the road to PR. May I remind her that Scandinavia has long had an outstanding record on women's representation in its national parliaments, partly for that reason.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions and, of course, for her authoritative perspective on the continuing process under the Beijing Platform for Action. Naturally, she is right when she says that there is a particular need to encourage women from ethnic minority communities to take part in public life. As I am sure she is aware, the political parties are engaged in trying to encourage such involvement. I believe that under our system it is more likely that that encouragement, and, it is hoped, success, will come from the type of action that I have described in relation to general appointments and general electoral processes through the party political machinery. I know, for example, that the Labour Party has a particular programme in action to take that forward in relation to ethnic minority women.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what is being done by Her Majesty's Government to promote the rights of women overseas?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, a most useful part of the presentation to the UN General Assembly, which I described, entitled Equality in Practice, was to try to align those actions taken by the Government, NGOs and other voluntary organisations in this country with our development programme overseas. I am sure that if the noble Baroness has the opportunity to look at that publication, she will see, for example, that some of the specific proposals regarding education and women's economic development, both in the UK and in specific countries in the developing world, show a pattern of collaboration and partnership. That is precisely the way in which the UN hopes that development will take place.
The UK can congratulate itself on a good record in this area over successive years and under successive administrations. In that regard, I particularly commend the work of my noble friend Lady Amos, who is sitting beside me on the Front Bench. The noble Baroness chaired the collective committee between the Department for International Development and the Women's Unit in the Cabinet Office on precisely aligning such policies within the UN. She was able to give a positive report to the United Nations conference on the progress we are making overseas.

European Central Bank
2.44 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their assessment of the performance to date of the European Central Bank.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the primary objective of the European Central Bank is to maintain price stability in the euro area, defined as an annual increase of below 2 per cent in the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP). In April 2000, euro area Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices stood at 1.9 per cent.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, perhaps I may point out that my Question asks what the Government think of the performance of the European Bank and not just for the statistics he mentioned. Surely it is time for the Government to come off the fence about their attitude to the European Central Bank and the euro, so that this country can know far more clearly where the Government stand on these key issues. Does the Minister agree that, if we had been in euro 11 from the start, our inflation rate would probably be higher than it now is; our central bank interest rate would be nearer 4.5 per cent than 6.5 per cent, and our currency in export terms would be 10 to 15 per cent lower? Is that a fair assessment? Does the Minister think that that would be a good achievement?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not like factual answers to his Questions. I should have thought it was obvious from the Answer I gave that the Government have always supported the European Central Bank in its primary objectives. We did so at the meetings at which the European Central Bank was set up. Our assessment is the factual one that it has been achieving that primary objective. He is asking me to speculate on matters which are not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. I am surprised that he should do so.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may revert to the Question on the Order Paper. Whatever the assessment of the Government on the work of the ECB, is it not irrelevant in the sense that, while we are outside the eurozone, there is nothing we can do about it? Would it not be better if the Government at least gave an indication of when we might expect a referendum to let the public decide?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in a Statement made by the Chancellor in October 1997, the Government made clear that the decision on whether or not to enter the euro is primarily an economic one and would be based on economic considerations. It is unlikely that there will be a stable resolution of those economic considerations during this Parliament.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I should make clear that I did not consult my noble friend before asking this

1119
Question. Bearing in mind the effects that the decisions of the European Central Bank can have upon the economy of each of the European countries which have the euro as their currency, can the Minister make clear to whom the bank is answerable and responsible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the European Central Bank was set up with the agreement of the 11 European countries in the eurozone. There is a Council of Finance Ministers of those 11 countries. The relationship between the European Central Bank, the 11 Finance Ministers and their governments is well established.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is unfair to criticise the European Central Bank and that it deserves congratulation? Can he confirm that no other central hank in history has had to cope with 11 different governments, all with differing views, and with trying to keep one interest rate? Is it not amazing that the EC B has not done even worse than it has?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I neither congratulate the European Central Bank nor condemn it for what it has done.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Finance Ministers in the 11 eurozone countries. What are the relations between those 11 Ministers and the Ministers of those countries which are within the European Union but not in the eurozone? There have been recent reports of differences of opinion. Are those reports correct?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Ministers of the 11 countries in the eurozone have regularly met together since the euro was first established. The finance Ministers of the 15 countries in the European Union meet together in ECOFIN, as they have done since and before the euro was established. I am not aware of any general disagreements between them. If the noble Lord has a specific question in that regard, perhaps he will put it to me.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Bank of England is a member of the European system of central banks and that we can make our contribution through that institution?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes. We can and do make our views known through the European system of central banks.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, does the Minister agree with Mr Prodi's statement in Denmark that it is not possible for a country to withdraw from the European single currency, or with his statement in the Spectator that it is possible for a country to withdraw from the single currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was aware of the statement of Mr Prodi that it was possible to withdraw. I was slightly surprised when I read it. It has
1120
always been our understanding that was an irreversible decision to enter the European single currency.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are constitutional issues involved in whether or not we enter the euro, as well as financial and economic ones? Also, can he say whether we are converging towards the five tests for entry or diverging from them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have always recognised that the joining of monetary policy in the European single currency is a pooling of sovereignty. That is clearly a constitutional issue. As to the changes in the adherence to the live economic conditions, the Government will make an assessment of that in due course. It is not appropriate to do so at the moment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, why did the Minister kick a relevant question of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry into touch?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not very good at sporting metaphors. I do not understand the question.

Sheep Farming
2.52 p.m.
Lord Geraint Lord Geraint asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the state of the sheep industry is satisfactory.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, we recognise that the strong pound and low prices have severely reduced sheep producers' incomes. However, since the early autumn prices have recovered substantially and are now 5 per cent above the level of 12 months ago. The more significant and sustained increase in returns depends on all elements of the food supply chain working together to respond effectively to consumer demand. The support system needs reform to reduce reliance on subsidy and to make the sector more market oriented. Our implementation of the rural development regulations will also help to strengthen marketing and collaborative approaches.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is she aware that it is estimated that farmers' incomes this year are dropping by £50 per week? Unless the Government lift the ban on sending our mutton carcasses to Europe within the next few months, we are in for a had period in the autumn when sheep farmers will be selling their produce.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, about farmers' incomes. Sheep farmers in particular have

1121
had an extremely difficult time. There is not a ban as such on the export of whole carcasses. The problem is that, since the BSE-related legislation on specified risk material, spinal cord must be removed from sheep over 12 months old. Splitting carcasses to remove the spinal cord is not acceptable to customers in France, which was our main market for mutton. We have managed to negotiate arrangements with France for whole, unspoilt ewe carcasses to be sent direct to listed cutting plants in France under official controls. The spinal cord is then removed under France's regime, which is similar to our own. But the industry has made representations that the requirement for consignments to be sent direct to premises creates difficulty for the trade and we therefore proposed to France a system of export in sealed compartments or cages within vehicles so that deliveries can be made en route.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am interested in what my noble friend said, but is she aware that in Gwynedd and Anglesey, for example, the sheep industry is in considerable difficulties? In particular, the wool industry is in great difficulty at present. Can the Minister say how hard the Government are working to help that area to get out of those difficulties?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is in recognition of the problems in the sheep industry that there has been support for that sector in each of the packages of aid announced by this Government, most recently in the £22 million agrimonetary compensation and the £60 million for the hill livestock compensation allowances, which support hill farmers, a great deal of which goes to those involved in sheep production.
I understand my noble friend's point in relation to the difficulties in the wool market. Prices there have recovered slightly compared with last year. The board's price indicator at mid-February stood at 70p per kilogram compared with 62p per kilogram in 1999. But my noble friend will be aware that wool is not an agricultural product. It is not supported through the CAP. The wool guarantee was terminated in 1993 and therefore the mechanisms to support the wool trade in times of difficulty, such as it is experiencing at the moment, are simply not there to implement.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if wool is not an agricultural product, can the Minister tell us what it is?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am trying to restrain myself from saying that it is what you get when you fleece a sheep.
Agricultural products are listed in Annexe I to the Treaty of Rome. Wool is not included in Annexe 1 to the Treaty of Rome, ergo it is not an agricultural product.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, further to the Minister's response, the only people getting fleeced at the moment, sadly, are our sheep farmers, whose situation is extremely serious.
1122
Can the Minister respond to the announcement of the £50 million cut in the sheep premium? Also, how quickly will the Government respond to the study being examined by the Scottish Agricultural College which is to be presented to the EU Commission in June?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the rate of sheep premium is set in relation to the levels available and will be lower this year than it has been in the past as a reflection of higher levels and prices on the Continent and the strong pound-euro exchange rate. I shall certainly read the report from the Scottish Agricultural College and consider what action to take. But the noble Baroness should be careful of commenting on reductions in support to the sheep industry, given the record of her government.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I know that noble Lords opposite do not like to be reminded of the facts in terms of support for hill livestock and compensation allowances, which were reduced by the previous government; but if it is fact, it is fact.
Lord Haskel: My Lords—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I may be wrong, but I do not believe anybody from this side has asked a question of my noble friend on this point. Perhaps we could hear the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, spoke about the export of sheep. Would it be straying too far from the Question if I asked my noble friend whether she can tell us what the Government are doing to help the export of beef?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, this is another sector that is experiencing difficulties. As my noble friend will be aware, the Prime Minister asked my colleague Joyce Quin to take a lead in this area. Following the lifting of the export ban to everywhere in Europe, apart from France, which is now completely isolated in this respect—I see that noble Lords opposite are not interested—both Malta and Ghana have lifted the ban on the export of British beef. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite would be pleased to support that development.

University Admissions
3 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to promote a reduction in the proportion of children from independent schools who are admitted to United Kingdom universities.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): The Government are committed to widening participation in higher education. The university funding system has been changed to give additional support for those students who are likely to need it most. We are financing summer schools to encourage young people to raise their sights, and we are supporting a variety of schemes to improve access to higher education. We want all young people with the potential to benefit from higher education to be admitted to university, whatever their background.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, does she agree with me that, in general, it is an infringement of academic freedom for the Government to interfere in university admissions? I say this particularly because every university in the country has said that it wants to admit able pupils of every class and from every school and has given great attention to widening the entry process. Therefore, why make the universities responsible for the weaknesses of a state education system?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government have been working with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and with the top research universities for some time to widen participation in universities. Our agenda is the same. I believe that it is accepted by many of my former colleagues in the CVCP that this is a challenge to all of us. There is no question of interference. The Government are perfectly well aware that admissions policies, their detail and how they are implemented are matters for the universities. Indeed, it was your Lordships' House—I remember the occasion well—that, rightly, made it absolutely clear that the details of the way in which students are admitted to universities is a matter for those universities. However, in the interest of promoting equal opportunities, it is perfectly right and appropriate that governments should provide incentives and encouragement to universities to deal with access problems.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister agree with me, and confirm, that 65 per cent of all students who gain three As at A-level come from the state sector and only 35 per cent from the independent sector, whereas figures for entry to Oxford are 53 per cent and 47 per cent respectively?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm the figures just given by my noble friend. Indeed, they have been widely available in the public domain over the past few days. I applaud the work that Professor Colin Lucas, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, is undertaking in order to widen participation. In a report produced by the University of Oxford last year, it was made clear that this was a problem and one which the university wished to
1124
crack. The Government will continue to work with Professor Lucas and his colleagues in attempting to widen participation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Section 6813) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 forbids the Secretary of State to fund institutions on the basis of the "criteria" that they use for "the admission of students". In the light of the description of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of admission procedures at Magdalen College in Oxford as a "scandal", can the Minister say whether it is the Government's intention to reform the law in order to use funding to reward or punish universities?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister not aware of the inconsistency of the Government's stance on this particular issue? If the Government are genuinely anxious to widen participation and to reduce the access barriers to our top universities, why have they pursued a policy of imposing tuition fees and abolishing maintenance grants? And why do they now seem to be acquiescing in plans for top-up fees?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with the point about top-up fees. The Government are not acquiescing. We have made the position absolutely clear; indeed, we legislated and took reserve powers to make it impossible for universities to charge top-up fees. We also made it clear that, if they did so, we would reduce their grants.
On the noble Baroness's wider point, I should point out to her—I am surprised that she is unaware of this—that there has been no reduction in the number of applicants and, indeed, in the number of students going to university from lower-income groups as a result of the changes in the student support regime and the introduction of tuition fees. Tuition fees are not paid by over one-third of young people; indeed, they pay no fees whatever. When the threshold is raised next year, that figure will rise to 40 per cent.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree—
Lord Desai: My Lords, does my noble friend agree—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should remind the House that the time limit of 30 minutes for Questions has now expired.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I wish to ask this question. It is a point of order. Is it in order to

1125
have premature interventions from the Front Bench which prevent Back-Bench Members of this House having a say on a vitally important Question?

Railtrack (Waverley Station) Order Confirmation Bill
3.6 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Earl of Carnarvon and the Lord Bridges set down for today shall each be limited to two hours.(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Transport Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 27,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 28 to 30,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 31 to 33,

Schedule 4,

Clause 34,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 35 to 60,

Schedule 6,

Clause 61,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 62 to 89,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 90 to 94,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 95 to 141,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 142 to 149,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 150 to 179,

Schedule 12,

1126

Clauses 180 to 187,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 188 to 192,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 193 to 199,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 200 to 203,

Schedule 16,

Clause 204,

Schedule 17,

Clause 205,

Schedule 18,

Clause 206,

Schedule 19,

Clause 207,

Schedule 20,

Clause 208,

Schedule 21.

Clauses 209 to 215,

Schedule 22,

Clauses 216 and 217,

Schedule 23,

Clauses 218 and 219,

Schedule 24,

Clauses 220 to 227,

Schedule 25,

Clauses 228 to 236,

Schedule 26,

Clauses 237 and 238,

Schedule 27,

Clause 239,

Schedule 28,

Clauses 240 to 242,

Schedule 29,

Clauses 243 to 247,

Schedule 30,

Clauses 248 to 253.-(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing in the South East
3.7 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvonrose to call attention to the case for additional housing in London and the South East and the Government's proposals for achieving their targets; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, has decided to make his maiden speech in today's debate. His experience as an Oxford City councillor, both in housing and in planning, will be extremely valuable and no doubt noble Lords will take a great deal of interest in what he has to say.
This debate on housing involves everyone in the country, not only those in the South East and in London. I must declare my interest, which is a non-pecuniary one, as chairman of SERPLAN—until it is disbanded in April of next year and its responsibilities transferred to the Mayor of London and two regional assemblies.

1127
I have been involved in planning for housing for nearly 50 years. It is a very emotive issue. I fervently believe that every individual or family should have a home, a house or a flat. Those of us who fought in wars mostly thought at anxious moments of our homes, as well as our loved ones. "The Englishman's home is his castle" is not a fantasy. It is as true today as it has always been. That is why local and central government have done their best to provide a level of housing provision which can be achieved in London and the South East in the next 16 years.
We must ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home. That is what I said in your Lordships' House on 15th December last year. That debate followed the publication of the Crow report. Since then the Government have published their proposals for future development in the South East. It is SERPLAN's response to those that I shall speak about today.
The Government have retained a good deal of the vision of the local authorities, their approach to achieving a more sustainable pattern of development and promoting urban renaissance, but I fear that the Government have disregarded the wider policy framework proposed by SERPLAN. Sustainable development cannot be achieved by the land use planning system acting alone. It is critically important that all decision-makers contribute to the process. Urban renaissance, for example, requires a coordinated approach by all relevant agencies. This was visible when some noble Lords, members of the All-Party London Group, visited Tower Hamlets a few weeks ago and were able to see for themselves the impressive Stepney Ocean Estate and the work of the Asian-led housing association, LABO.
Public transport will only become a realistic alternative to excessive use of the private car through large-scale private investment. The role of individuals and organisations therefore needs to be clear, as does the relationship between the different strategies and delivery mechanisms operating within the region.
SERPLAN has set out in some detail the expected contribution of these other bodies and mechanisms, including central government, and called for new mechanisms where these were needed. This approach is consistent with the concept of spatial strategies developing throughout Europe and reflected in guidance given by the Government.
The Government's consultation document, Proposed Changes, is stronger in the presentation of good intentions than in setting out the means and policies whereby these are to be implemented. The Government have failed to give local authorities the necessary powers, particularly in relation to housing type and tenure issues and the whole question of affordability. Similarly, in relation to wider housing issues, the Government have not acknowledged that existing mechanisms are inadequate to deliver the urban component of housing provision on the scale required.
I know that many people living in the South East fear that excessive development will affect their lives and ruin the countryside which they love. Housing
1128
provision is a subject which is too often considered in isolation. It must be seen as part of an integrated, spatial planning approach and considered alongside, and in close relation to, economic issues, employment and transport.
The Government's specific policy, as set out in Proposed Changes, for the overall level of housing provision in the South East is that,
"Housing should be provided at the annual average rate of 23,000 dwellings in London and 43,000 dwellings in the rest of the South East".
No specific rationale is offered, either in Proposed Changes or in the accompanying housing technical note, for the lievel of housing provision proposed for the rest of the South East (ROSE). The Government argue that it should be possible to provide more housing, with proportionately less impact on land and other resources. The Government believe that ROSE can provide 43,000 dwellings per annum between 1996 and 2016.
The approach to housing provision for ROSE put forward by SERPLAN was based on "plan, monitor and manage". To summarise—the proposal was to plan for a supply side baseline level of provision with the strategic authorities demonstrating how they would increase this in line with a higher indicative range; to monitor key housing trends; and to manage additional housing provision through the development plan system. SERPLAN's approach was based on "managing up" to a total level of housing provision.
The level of housing provision proposed by the Government for ROSE does not recognise he real practical difficulties in achieving these targets. Some 43,000 dwellings per annum is an annual average relating to the period from 1996. We are already well into that period. The most recent available information indicates that additional housing since 1996 has been running at around 39,000 dwellings a year. The new regional guidance is unlikely to be put in place before 2001. Following publication in its final form, additional housing provision cannot be increased to the proposed level quickly. Even with speedy reviews, revised development plan policies will take some time to put in place. This means that the real scope for increasing housing provision through the plan-led process will be post-2006.
One important aspect of housing provision is affordable housing and the Government have suggested a target of not less than 40 per cent. SERPLAN's recent work has indicated that only 20–25 per cent of planning completions are affordable. SERPLAN supports the Government's target for affordable housing but in order to achieve it it will continue to press the Government strongly for increased power over size, type and tenure—an important issue which I stressed in my speech on 15th December last year.
Local authorities in both London and the South East are concerned about additional housing in parts of the South East without jobs being available to sustain the population, and such housing being occupied by long-distance commuters.

1129
I know that local government wish to engage in constructive dialogue with central government on the future provision of housing in the South East. I look forward to hearing noble Lords' views and the Government's response at the end of the debate. I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for raising this urgent and persistent problem and, in passing, giving me the chance to make my maiden speech.
Housing, and planning and transport with which it is inevitably intertwined, has been a particular interest of mine—as the noble Earl was kind enough to point out—since I was an Oxford City councillor serving on the housing and planning committees. I was elected to that council in 1972 just before the noble Earl became chairman of Hampshire County Council and just as house prices in the South East were really taking off for the first time. I remember that well because I had struggled to buy a small terraced house in east Oxford for £8,500, with a salary at that time in my new job of £2,500.
It was a good salary and it was certainly a very interesting job. I was a research assistant and speech writer; "chocolate soldier" as we were called because we were paid by the Joseph Rowntree Trust, to which we on these Benches owe a great deal. My boss at that time is my now noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. One of my first tasks was to help him with a speech on housing and transport. A generation later, at the peak of yet another house price boom in south-east England, I thought that I would start by taking a look back at what we said then:
"At the end of June 1972. the typical modern house in London and the South-East was selling at £11.000. Only six months earlier its price was £8,800. Fifteen years before it could be bought for £2,500.
"The problem in London"—
the speech went on—
"is particularly acute. It is already hard to retain teachers for London schools or probation officers for London courts because when they want families they can find nowhere adequate to live. If we can provide housing of varied standards and prices near to the areas where people work, we are not only preserving our cities, we are also relieving some of the transport problems. If part of our problem stems from mass daily travel, part of the solution is to reduce the need for it".
It was a radical speech. It called for a system of compulsory purchase by local authorities to force owners to release land which the country needed for housing. We saw our planning system then as the key protector of land use against immensely strong market uses, which have never been properly tamed. If left alone, they would produce,
"one great sprawl, neither city nor country, neither field nor place, where life without a car is impossible, yet roads and parking space will take up two-thirds of the area of these non-cities."
1130
Well, we have moved a good deal down that dismal road already in the South East since 1972.
We are no more likely to solve the housing problems of the South East by greenfield private development than we are to cure traffic congestion by building more motorways. We cannot trust market forces to produce the right housing balance for society in this richest and most congested corner of England where land supply is tight and demand can be almost infinite. No, if one is serious about keeping vital services going in London, or Oxford, or Horsham, or our villages by giving nurses, policemen, teachers or bus drivers some chance of a decent home that they can afford, one has to be firm and tough, year in and year out, using the planning system quite deliberately in conjunction with higher grant rates to housing associations. I very much agree with the noble Earl that we must target new developments throughout London and the South East strongly towards affordable housing. This will help key workers who would expect to buy but are now priced out of the market near their work, and also the many people who—let us never forget this—will always need homes to rent long term because their incomes are too low or too uncertain for a mortgage.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued two important housing papers in March and April: the new Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 and the housing Green Paper. Both contain plenty of sound sense. But on the key point of affordable housing, what do they say, what will they do, and when will they do it?
The Green Paper talks about,
"assessing and delivering an appropriate amount of new affordable housing, a significant proportion of which becomes available through the operation of planning policies".
It points out that,
"insufficient amounts of new affordable housing have been developed in areas of acute housing pressure"
and that,
"in areas of high demand there tend to be higher than average levels of overcrowding and use of temporary accommodation".
Finally, on page 71, we learn:
"in London and many southern urban and rural areas, high demand for housing coupled with high house prices has placed acute pressure on the social housing stock".
That is all very worthy, but it hardly starts to recognise the scale and urgency of the problem.
I am delighted to hear from the noble Earl that the Government are moving towards a target of 40 per cent affordable housing in new developments in the South East. If so, it is certainly rapid movement since last year when we were told that PPG3 was a statement of policy rather than a guidance manual. Now, on page 74 of the Green Paper, we are promised good practice guidance next year on helping local authorities secure appropriate affordable housing within new developments and improved arrangements for finding out what is going on. I am bound to say that when one reads these documents one gets the feeling that the DETR is moving ahead about as fast as traffic on the M25 on a Friday night.

1131
The shortage of affordable housing is acute throughout south-east England. I would argue that in the present situation of extreme housing shortage we should have a general presumption that for at least the next five years at least half of each new development on greenfield sites in south-east England should be affordable housing. That 50 per cent target should not be eroded by the so-called planning gains and Section 106 agreements invented by the last government. After all, these are basically just ways of selling planning permissions to the highest bidder.
A maiden speech is not the place to discuss all the changes in planning and taxation which are essential to transform access to affordable housing both to rent and buy. It is the place, I hope, to point out that the developers have gobbled up green fields for a generation but housing need in London and the South East is just as acute today as it was 30 years ago. Housing, planning and transport policy in London and the South East will be a hard test of "joined-up government". Is it just a slogan, or will it really work on the ground?
Although we are life Peers, other maiden speakers have talked about their fathers. We heard that the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater, is a hereditary civil servant. My noble friend Lord Greaves produced a policeman's whistle. Luckily, the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, spared us the butcher's cleaver on Monday. My father was a diplomat. I do not really know what the tools of a diplomat's trade are—perhaps a bagful of foreign languages in his case. He was very proud to be the first boy from his local school ever to get into Oxford. That was possible even in the had old days before the Chancellor of the Exchequer appointed himself admissions tutor of Magdalen.
I thank the officers and staff of the House, who have been universally kind and helpful to me both before and after my introduction. It is heartening to see so many old friends here. For example, six of us in the latest list of new Peers are old comrades from the SDP—three on these Benches and three on the Benches opposite. I look forward to working with them and with all noble Lords, wherever they sit, in the interests of the whole House.
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I should like to congratulate—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, on two occasions this afternoon the conventions of the House have been gravely abused. The time has come for a halt. I suggest that we pay courtesy to the noble Baroness paying tribute to the maiden speaker by listening to her speech.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, on his very
1132
passionate and informative maiden speech. It was a pleasure to listen to someone with whom I hope to work very closely.
For the benefit of your Lordships who are not informed about the noble Lord, I should like to give a brief résumé of his background. He has an extensive reputation, being economic adviser to several foreign countries as well as having been a special adviser to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—"a chocolate soldier", as we have learnt. The noble Lord has an independent company, which he set up a number of years ago, and is an ardent campaigner in Lambeth. I look forward to working with him and to hearing him speak on many occasions. He certainly has not lost the skills that he used in speechwriting for others, as he demonstrated in his eloquent speech this afternoon.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before my noble friend continues, after her very appropriate and well-earned tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, I should like to remind Members of your Lordships' House that when a maiden speaker rises to speak, and during the tribute to the maiden speaker, no one should enter or leave the Chamber. Perhaps I may explain that I did not intervene because I think that it is nerve-racking for a maiden speaker to have noble Lords calling "Order" as he or she rises. I hope that in future all noble Lords will observe the conventions. I apologise to my noble friend Lady Uddin for intervening, and, as the Whip, assure her that none of the time that I have spent will be taken from her speaking time.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I am delighted about that. I feel slightly relieved by my noble friend's intervention.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carriarvor, for initiating this timely debate. It gives us an opportunity to contribute to the first comprehensive review of housing for 23 years. I am delighted to have this opportunity proudly to discuss this within the context of the Green Paper, Quality and Choice: A decent home for all.
I welcome the statement in the report that,
"People who are decently housed have a stronger sense of security and place. Decent housing strengthens communities and provides a better setting in which to raise families. It improves health and educational achievement and provides a long-term asset that can he passed on to future generations".
If it is the view that proper housing can begin the soul of a community, does not the rationale for the decay of inner cities over decades become plainly obvious?
I last spoke on housing during the discussion on the English House Condition Survey for 1996, when I drew your Lordships' attention to the plight of housing issues in our borough of Tower Hamlets. As a resident of long standing in the borough—some 27 years—I do not share some of the rosy pictures painted by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. I shall explain why.

1133
During the debate I explained the desperate shortage of housing for the local community. I also spoke about the devastating impact of embracing race to deploy housing policy, particularly under the Liberal administration in Tower Hamlets in the 1980s. I believe that at that time the issue of additional housing—or simply housing as a serious political discussion—was not firmly on the Government's agenda.
There has of course been a significant change, and the recognition of addressing the need for increased investment in housing is now a central part of all the regeneration initiatives. The release of capital receipts by the Government represented the first substantial increase in investment in housing in decades. There is much still to be done, but housing now has a greater prominence in the political agenda and there is a growing awareness—as evidenced by the Green Paper—of the importance of good housing as the basis of a civilised, decent society.
It has been recognised that access to housing is crucial to addressing the growing "residualisation" of large sections of the population within cities such as London, in particular within areas such as Tower Hamlets. The Green Paper specifically acknowledges the need to find ways to reform the process of allocating social housing.
Equally important is the need to create greater opportunities for affordable home ownership in areas where land values and housing costs are prohibitive. My own back yard of Wapping is a prime example. On one side of the street are houses which are in desperate need of modernisation; on the other side are family houses which cost up to £300,000 to buy or £300 per week to rent. I regret to say that there is apartheid in the community due to decades of poor planning. The division between rich and poor is blatant.
In my area of Tower Hamlets there is still an acute shortage of good quality, affordable accommodation, and a desperate shortage of large dwellings. There remains also an overwhelming demand for accommodation from the council and local housing associations. As stated before, it is simply not possible to meet the demand. I believe that, to a certain extent, the opportunity to do the right thing in social housing was essentially missed during the days of building the Docklands dream town.
The housing needs of Tower Hamlets are well researched and frequently cited. They include: 16,000 households which are in need of a home from the council; double the London average of overcrowded families; 70 per cent of its population on low income or dependent on benefits while the remainder earn on average £600 per week; and a faster-than-average growing population of young people. Within this picture of multiple deprivation there are large areas of more severe disadvantage—such as Spitalfields ward, where unemployment is the highest in London. This is despite huge amounts of investment in the area. In close proximity there is disparity in the amount of luxury private developments in Docklands and on the City fringe.
1134
This is a clear example of poor planning and bad management of resources over a long period. Of course, the area must attract a new population to the borough, but the cost has been that it has failed to address the existing needs and demands of many in the local community, thereby creating ghettoization.
Thus the need for good quality, affordable housing is growing at the same time as the polarisation of rich and poor accentuates. We need to find ways in which to increase the supply of rented accommodation of the appropriate size and type. Those who have experienced facing the wrath of the private sector and the private landlord in my area will tell you that the new rules for housing benefit are likely to have a dramatic impact on the quality of housing provision available to their families.
We also need to find ways in which to retain within our cities, especially London, families in low-paid employment with aspirations to home ownership. This is another concern of the Government's housing Green Paper, particularly in relation to key public sector workers. I should like to see the key workers scheme extended to our talented young professionals to enable them to remain in the area where they were born. This would act as a catalyst to other young people in the area. In our area we are desperate for our successful young people, our role models, to be able to work and to remain living in the local area. That would assist and contribute to the development of our community.
The new strategy must also consider ensuring that housing associations sell properties at a reasonable cost to their tenants. I believe that the DIYSO scheme is worth re-examination in this regard.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to some recent initiatives in Tower Hamlets. I believe that many small and large housing associations in Tower Hamlets have been leaders and have inspired many initiatives throughout Britain. I should like to pay tribute to the individuals involved.
From the outside one may observe that, within the past decade, the local council has successfully regenerated a significant number of estates—not, I hesitate to add, because it was willing, but because it was compelled by pressure from the community and the commitment of its leaders, who had the foresight to realise that large amounts of social housing would be required by the population.
Some of the good examples have been achieved through the Estate Action and Single Regeneration Budget programmes—although a cursory walk around the borough would demonstrate the need for much more. Again, it needs to be stated that the parts which most require attention are populated by the Bangladeshi community. The question that needs to be asked—and must be asked—is why the most deprived areas remain the poorest. I should like to see any further resources targeted for additional housing for areas of prolific need.
During the days of my involvement in the community work arena, many of us argued with authorities that simply improving bricks and bollards

1135
is not enough to build the fabric of a confident society, a point recognised in the Green Paper. It is necessary to address the soul of the community, as demonstrated by last Sunday's programme "Soul of Britain". Therefore I was pleased to host a meeting last Monday of an initiative supported by the Housing Corporation Faith in Regeneration, which is a project to be undertaken in conjunction with the Social Exclusion Unit and which is to examine good practice in taking into account the faiths of a community in the provision of housing and other regeneration schemes. This is a welcome trend.
In my area, the aims of many of the housing associations have, in essence, acted to fill the gaps created during the dark days of nearly 20 years of Conservatism, when housing policies were essentially discrirninatory. During that period, much of our good land was put into the hands of outsiders, who had no commitment to enhancing good social housing or to the participation of, particularly, the Bangladeshi community in any decision-making process, thus leading to the huge deficit in both adequate housing and leadership which is prevalent today.
How have we fared since coming to power? In simple terms, we have in our approach maintained the status quo, with the same people running the local show-—with not a single quango—in housing or otherwise, and led by members of the local community. Leadership in housing and regeneration is critical to the development of a sustainable community. If the new housing policy is to address sustainable development, I should like to see the development of clauses to ensure local leadership in the delivery of all newly proposed boards and funding mechanisms.
With its partner, the Housing Corporation, the council is trying to link housing with wider regeneration initiatives. Tower Hamlets was one of the first councils to set up a "local labour in construction" scheme to ensure that 20 per cent of the work on Estate Action programmes in the borough went to local people. I should like to see this extended to management and leadership as well.
The council has also set up an innovative arm's-length company to deliver the Stepney SRB programme; it was recently declared a Pathfinder authority in the New Deal for Communities initiative; in addition, the council has assisted in attracting more than £100 million-worth of private and public sector funding through the setting up of local housing companies in Poplar and Bethnal Green.
Here again, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the unacceptable levels of lack of participation in the decision-making process. I do not want to see the same "Hobson's Choice" continuing year on year. To address social exclusion, we must begin to accept that the community must take the lead in the provision of its services.
In conclusion, additional housing is critical if we are to achieve sustainable and confident communities. In places like Tower Hamlets these needs must be accompanied by intelligent responses to assisting the
1136
empowerment of the people themselves, facilitating leadership and confidence. I do not want to see choices in housing available to people on the same basis that education is available to our community; namely, that there is no choice.
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I follow on with congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. I do not know whether it was his experiences on Oxford City Council that enabled him to withstand the diversion of various Lords a-swirling but he certainly dealt with it with extreme aplomb. That will be a very valuable asset in this House. I congratulate him on the content of his speech. I am sure we look forward to hearing from him in the future.
Housing is, of course, one of the most emotive of subjects, as has already been said, particularly in London and the South East of England where there are enormous pressures.
I know more about London than I know about the South East, so I shall concentrate my short remarks o n that area. Perhaps the housing pressures in London are easier to diagnose than to resolve. Some of those pressures and difficulties have been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, who comes from a different part of London from myself, and there are differences in every area.
The housing pressures are brought about for a number of reasons. The first pressure is the high property values that are now prevalent in London. In the Daily Telegraph recently there was an article which was headed "Is property becoming unaffordable?' There is something to be said for that observation. A lot of the property in central and west London is now well beyond the reach of anybody on a reasonable salary. Therefore, a lot of the property is now in the hands of investment companies. A lot of the property is in the hands of companies which are buying it for the purposes of letting it to their overseas staff or buying it so they do not have to use hotels. That property, on an international market, is now virtually inaccessible to anybody who is on a normal London salary. Therefore, a vast slice of property has been removed in that way.
The corollary, of course, to that is that the improvement in that property is vast. We have all been aware that over the years the standard of property in London has deteriorated. But the investment of money within it has now raised the standards beyond the normal reach of most people.
We are therefore driving away people in the middle income bracket, who are unable to live within London. My son has recently invested what must be his every last penny for the next 150 years in buying a small property. It is a major investment that young people are having to make and is well beyond many of them.
It is not only the purchase of property which is becoming impossible for people on middle incomes and young people; it is also the renting of property. We are again in a very high rented market, and we are also seeing within the statutory sector, under the Rent Act

1137
provisions, people who are statutory tenants finding that rents are being raised well beyond what they expect and can afford.
The improvement of property affects many areas. There is pressure on property in one area which then begins to affect the adjacent area and there is then a rolling programme of what one could call "the Notting Hill syndrome". There is a move to gentrification. People who can afford property in that area move back, but then people who were previously able to afford that property have to go elsewhere. This again puts pressure on the available property and the affordability of that property.
As we have discussed, people on lower incomes, of course, rely very heavily on affordable housing. As I am well aware, most local authorities can provide affordable social housing, but that is on a variety of tenures. It is very difficult to be able to provide that housing in London now. There are fewer and fewer available sites for housing.
We talk rather glibly about brownfield sites. In many cases now brownfield sites are a good investment. But then we return to the problem of the unaffordability of such property. If the state cannot afford a site then it cannot afford to provide property at a reasonable value and it will not do so. That then puts pressure on us.
There is also the difficulty of who is moving into social housing. Is it the homeless? Of course. But we do not want all our estates made up of people who do not know each other. One of the big problems in the past with social housing has been that very often vast areas of London were cleared for redevelopment. What happens then? People from the waiting list, people off the homeless list and asylum seekers are put into that redevelopment, not one of whom knows each other. There is no community. There was no community from the start. So in big developments great care should be taken with regard to how the tenures are sorted out in order to try and build a community from the outset. But the sites must be available before building can begin.
The general increase in London's population is caused, first, by the immigration of people who come to work here, and, secondly, greater pressure is caused by people who come because London is attractive. It is a mecca to which people come to live and it must now be a great disappointment because when they arrive it is so difficult to find somewhere to live.
I do not bandy figures around very often because I usually get them wrong, but I think the increase in the population of London between 1983 and 1991 was at a rate of about 16,000 a year. Between 1991 and 1998 it was 42,000. It does not take very long to rack up the sort of figures that SERPLAN talks about as the requirement for new properties when you work on that basis.
What do we do about it? It is easy to stand here and explain the problems, but what are we going to do about it?
1138
I understand that VAT is still charged on brownfield sites and is not charged on greenfield sites. Not only is it charged on brownfield sites but it is also charged on anything that is developed on brownfield sites. This seems to me to be a nonsense. It must be one area that needs looking at. The encouragement must be, of course, to develop within the city if we can. But that also increases once again the value and the cost of property.In the public sector, local authorities, local health authorities and private developers must work together. We are clearly well past the days when local authorities can work on their own. They need to work in co-operation and co-ordination with others. By doing that they will achieve the mixed tenure about which I spoke.
To include a percentage of affordable housing in each development is not easy. We tried it in Kensington and Chelsea. We said that a certain proportion of every site had to consist of affordable housing. But land costs made that almost impossible to deliver. We have achieved that on some sites, but we have to accept that we will have to provide it elsewhere on others. The "elsewhere" is the problem. It is very difficult in London.
I think that probably even more emotive than issues regarding the green belt are issues regarding the provision of housing. As I said in opening—and I agree with much of what has already been said—housing is probably the one security that people need. To have a secure home is an essential. Not everybody has a secure home. It is becoming less and less easy to have a secure home. I think that central London will be the worse for it. If we cannot resolve some of these problems, we will be left with an investment city. I do not think that anybody really wants that. I do not think that housing should be traded, if I can put it that way. We need to find a way to resolve the problems of housing, but property values at the moment are making life extremely difficult.
3.51 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, my childhood home was a small privately rented house. It had been rented by my grandparents before my parents took it over. The rent was small. Indeed it was so small that when my father asked for some repairs to be done the landlord suggested that he bought the house, which he did in the 1950s for £900. For all its inadequacies—and there were many—it was our home. That was as true when we rented it as when we bought it. It was in that house that my parents created our family. It was in that house that we loved each other and fought each other, welcomed our wider family and community. We prayed together and we broke bread together around the table. That is where we grew up to be the people we became. It was a house, but it was much more: it was a home. It was there for us, offering us security, as, along with so many others in those years after the war, we struggled to make ends meet and to keep the family alive.
I am president of the Churches National Housing Coalition. We support the National Housing Federation campaign with its wonderful slogan, "Our

1139
homes our future". In the South East the NHF has produced an important report on housing needs in the region to the year 2016. That report is called Who needs Housing? Of course the people need housing. They need homes in which they can fulfil their vocations in marriage and family, work and leisure, politics and religion. That reality is the basis for the moral and spiritual dimension of this issue, which is that if we leave people without homes or living in homes which are not fit for their human dignity, we are offending the fundamental moral principles of God's goodness to us all.
We have a particular kind of housing crisis in the South East. It is borne of economic growth and development. The fact is that London and the South East is the motor driving our national economy and shaping our future. History—and indeed experience around the world—tell us that people will gather where there is economic opportunity. If people gather, they will need housing. History also tells us that we would be foolish to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that that is not the case, or leave it to market forces to sort out. We need a strategy for dealing with growth in London and the South East.
The NHF report points out that while there are significant numbers of people who are doing extremely well—and we have heard about some of them this afternoon—in the region, there are also many people on average or below average incomes. It is they who are feeling the crisis in our housing policy. The crisis is one of cost. As others have said, we do not have sufficient affordable housing in the region. If you want to buy a house in Surrey this year, you will need a lot of money. In the year to March 2000 the price of a small three-bedroom semi-detached house in Guildford rose by 22.5 per cent. You would be fortunate in the summer of this year to buy such a house for anything less than £160,000. To afford such a house you would probably be a double-income family, taking on a large mortgage, possibly supported by inherited or family wealth. Many people just cannot afford this.
If you then look at the rented and social sector of housing, the news is equally bad. Affording the rents of social housing—either local authority or independent social landlord housing—is very difficult for those on low or modest incomes, many of whom do not qualify for housing benefit. The average rent in Surrey for social housing is approximately £50 per week higher than in the private rented sector.
The NHF report suggests that we shall need at least 360,000 social houses with affordable rents by the year 2016. People in local government have suggested to me that it is important that we set percentage targets for affordable housing in the region and that the provision of social housing is crucial to achieving that target. We must also bear in mind that many local authorities still have large accumulated reserves from council house sales. We need to know what the intentions of the Government are with regard to investing those in the housing needs for the region.
1140
The issue is about people. The issue is about teachers and nurses, people in public service, police and those serving the social needs of the community, those who run our transport systems and who service us in many ways. It is they who, if they are not already adequately housed, are struggling to meet the cost demands of all sorts of housing in our region. I know of people in our churches with children who are in despair because they cannot afford the housing costs in Surrey. I am certain that that is true in many other parts of the region as well.
There have been many and various estimates of what the actual housing need is. Many of them talk in terms of 800,000 or more houses. No doubt there will be considerable debate around such figures. I suggest that it is not enough to approach this challenge simply by thinking in terms of finding brownfield sites and building houses on them. Yes, indeed, we need to use our precious land appropriately. But houses are homes for people. People have many needs if their lives are to have security and hope. Good schools and churches, community facilities, leisure opportunities, transport and a clean environment, local shops and services are necessary. When we build houses, we are either building community or destroying it.
One of the features of life for people in the South East is stress. Huge demands are made on people and families to meet the challenges of growth and development. If we do not build houses with a view to building homes and communities, we shall simply be adding to that stress. Building houses on brown field sites solves nothing if we do not address what homes should mean for people in their humanity.
I came to Surrey over five years ago from South Yorkshire. I observed one thing in common between the derelict sites of South Yorkshire and the wealthy estates in some parts of Surrey. It was not that both had inadequate street lighting. It was also that none had any community facilities, except possibly golf courses. There were no shops, no schools, no places of meeting, no financial services. There were just houses with people locked in them.
If we are to have the levels of development in the South East such as have been talked about in this House today, then we must not make those mistakes. As we develop housing in our region, we need a mixed economy of housing and the issue of affordability must be addressed. But we need to ensure also that when we build houses, we build homes. I believe that in building homes, we are building communities for our future where people care for one another. Only by such means can we begin to meet the moral and spiritual demands of this issue.
We must not allow this matter to sink into a political argument about numbers. We must address the issue of what housing means and begin to do something about it at this moment of development.
4.1 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carnarvon for allowing us the

1141
opportunity to debate this most fundamental of issues today. I declare my interest as a commercial and residential landlord in London.
There is a chronic shortage of temporary and permanent accommodation for single people in London. The system is silted up from top to bottom. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has drawn attention, as have previous speakers, to the high rents in London. I want to concentrate on that special area.
There is a shelter for young homeless people in Berwick Street. Five years ago, young people who were homeless were allowed to stay for a maximum of 10 days before moving on to more appropriate accommodation. Last year, one young person was there for more than 150 days. That is 10 times more than the architect had in mind when he built the place.
Moreover, many young people are being put into inappropriate bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Elderly single homeless people are being put into supported accommodation and are staying there and staying there. Therefore, no new people are able to use that very important facility because the people there are not moving on.
There is a street shelter for 15 to 16 to 25 year-olds in Soho. Young people are allowed into their rooms on their own only at ten o'clock at night. Some of those young people are extremely troubled and the staff do not wish them to harm themselves. Each room is shared with one other occupant. During their time in the hostel, they will have very little time for any privacy.
There is a great mix of young people. The short-term homeless are either at risk of permanent homelessness or they have been on the streets for a few nights. Even so, some have had experience of being in a psychiatric hospital, residential care home or prison before coming onto the streets. Others are asylum seekers who were previously happy until they faced that traumatic experience of war.
For example, I saw one young asylum seeker working at her homework the other day. Another resident said to her, "What are you doing that for? What is the point of doing that? I have never studied and I do not see the point of it". That hostel is designed as a clearing house and it should be used for that purpose. There should be accommodation to which those young people can move.
Young people at risk are being put in Bamp;Bs. They are being put into bed and breakfasts in Earls Court. It may be the intention that they are there only for a month but there have been cases when they have been there for eight months. The accommodation is overcrowded and filthy. There is inadequate security and a high level of theft by other residents. Young people who may have been in residential care or prison are staying there. They are given £40 a week from which they are supposed to pay for take-aways. It must be a great temptation to return to crime.
Facilities for older single homeless people are extremely valuable. Many older homeless people have low-level mental health needs which go unrecognized
1142
by the statutory authorities. There is a single homeless project providing 500 beds in London which has available a psychiatric nurse who can advise on appropriate treatment for those people. But if beds are not made vacant, then the new people who need that help will not receive it.
I recognise that planning for housing in London is now the mayor's responsibility. Will the Minister undertake to convey my concern and that of other noble Lords about the need for low-cost rented accommodation in London?
My other concern is a strategic one. Some time ago, I lived for 16 to 18 months by a housing estate—one of the largest housing estates in Europe—in south London. I have worked with young people from housing estates, organising activities and excursions for them on several occasions over periods of three weeks or so.
There is now £19 billion of repairs needed to be made to social housing. How did we come to that pass? What is to prevent us from returning to it? We need to bear in mind the figures produced by the Rowntree report on social exclusion. The problem is worsening. Between 1995 and 1998, the numbers on very low incomes rose from 4.3 million to 5 million. So the poorest of the poor are becoming poorer.
Primary school children are becoming increasingly polarised in schools with very high numbers on free school meals compared with schools where few of the pupils are on free school meals. So child poverty seems to have become increasingly polarised in particular primary schools. Society is changing. It may be that we cannot now talk of the privileged few but we have the affluent majority, the privileged many. The danger is that the experience of politicians and the public will diverge greatly from those who are socially excluded. The very welcome policies now being put in place will not be seen through to completion. The general public will not demand that; they are busy with their own business. The socially excluded are in a minority. Many do not vote. Many vote only one way and so perhaps their vote is disregarded. Fewer and fewer politicians come from working-class areas. That was an issue raised earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. As I said, it reflects the way in which society is changing.
While it is good that people are better off and can expect more from life than they did in the past, we must have regard to the side effects of that affluence. The experience of the underprivileged is less well represented. At the moment we are living in an exceptional time. After many years of a Conservative administration we now have a Labour government. The Chancellor has a large war chest. However, what will happen when the economy takes a downward turn? What will happen when the expected reaction against the many positive interventions currently being made by this Government takes place?
How can we sustain these improvements? Can we achieve an all-party and national consensus that those who are socially excluded should receive the help they need? I make that point in this debate because if the

1143
excluded do not receive the help they need, I am concerned that the low-rent, social housing we are discussing today will, over time, degenerate. Even if that housing is well designed—which was not the case in the past—if people are neglected, their communities tend to degenerate and their homes degenerate along with them. I agree with the right reverend Prelate when he pointed out that it is not enough to have merely bricks and mortar; communities and stable homes are also of vital importance. I am concerned that we may lose touch with the grass-roots experience of people living in sink estates.
My father had an answer to the problem of how to sustain the momentum. He would recall the absentee landlords of Ireland in the 19th century—my forebears. They lived away from Ireland during the famine. They would send over a few pennies to support the starving farmers. My father would say that if those landlords had spent more time on their estates, perhaps they would have paid more attention to the needs of their tenant farmers. My father worked in Toynbee Hall and brought that experience to bear on his opinions, like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who also has important experience of working with the socially excluded. My father would say that we must ensure that we acquaint ourselves personally with those on the margins and that we must understand their experience of daily life.
recall once being taken by four or five primary school children to watch their home being demolished. They had lived in a tower block on a Deptford housing estate. The blocks were destroyed because of their poor architecture, but we must be careful that we do not make even more mistakes which could lead to a similar experience in 20 years' time from now.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a joy and a pleasure to speak once again in a debate on housing. We have too few of them. We are indebted to the noble Earl for having been successful, lucky and fortunate in securing the time. In the life of a Parliament, time is the most important commodity. Sadly, however, the House is not as full as it has been on other occasions when debating different topics.
We have heard several powerful speeches and I should like to congratulate all contributors. Speakers have brought their own experiences to bear on their contributions and we have some powerful lessons to learn from them.
My experience lies in having been a Member of Parliament for the constituency of Edmonton. For 10 years, the "flavour of the month" at constituency surgeries was housing problems. Although issues regarding education and pensions were often raised, concerns somehow always returned to housing. My successor, Andy Love, who is a first-class constituency Member of Parliament, last week told me that housing continues to be the primary reason why his constituents come to see him. Without wanting to cause offence to anyone, I would say simply that unless one sits in an M P's surgery every two weeks or perhaps
1144
even more frequently, listening—I did it not because I had to, but because I wanted to—to the accounts of lives made wretched as a result of poor housing, one cannot understand the problems.
Many of the problems concerned council housing, some concerned private sector housing, but also many problems stemmed from having no housing at all. That certainly was the case in the 1970s. Perhaps it is a little different today. Having heard such stories, I would sometimes cry as I left my constituency. As I have said, many people led truly wretched lives.
I now have the pleasure of living in Loughton, a place not unfamiliar to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who well knows that it is a completely different place from Edmonton. Nevertheless, even in a place like Loughton, there are pockets where the housing provision is wretched.
The noble Earl has provided the House with an opportunity to assist the Government. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Whitty and his ministerial colleagues that they would be doing the nation a service if they sought to raise up in the political agenda the need for more and better housing. I do not want to make a political point here, because that would not get us anywhere. However, I sense that there is within the Government a commitment to do something about housing, a commitment perhaps driven more by the points covered so well by the right reverend Prelate, who said that we should not become bogged down in political dogma or statistics. It is people who matter.
I am not competent to argue the exact figures; those who want to do that are entitled so to do. I look upon the question of housing provision as a matter of giving ordinary people—poor people—a better opportunity to lead a good life.
The opening statement in the document produced by the Government entitled Quality and Choice: A decent home for all says:
"Our aim is to offer everyone the opportunity of a decent home and so promote social cohesion, well-being and self-dependence. This Green Paper sets out our strategy for housing covering housing policies and links with our broader social agenda in England and Housing Benefit in Great Britain".
I do not believe that there is any Member of this House who would not want to see that become a reality one day. Those who, like myself almost 40 years ago, have been leaders in a London borough realise that however hard we struggle this will always be a problem.
In my view, what is needed is political will. It would not be impossible for the Government to spend twice as much money as they do now on subvention to the Housing Corporation and to ensure that that money is spent more effectively than it has been in the past. Nothing need stop that except for political will. Any issue can be prioritised and raised in importance.
I am not criticising this Government or any other administration for deciding to keep housing at its present level in the political agenda. When I was active in local politics, the issues were housing, education, pensions, transport, hospitals and the health service. We should not forget that housing remained at the top of the list of social needs. Furthermore, we should

1145
remember that this is National Housing Week, during which an attempt is being made to focus on the problems we face.
I should like to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on, in effect, sticking his neck out and producing a set of targets for housing. I repeat that I am not competent to comment on whether those targets are right or wrong, but it is right that we should set specific aims to focus on and strive for. I read in today's newspapers that certain councils have objected to the fact that they are being asked to extend their provision; one region has been asked to build 162,000 units, but it wants only 146,000. Quite frankly, although I respect the fact that individual regions have studied the problems and know what they are talking about—I respect, too, the professionals who are involved in housing—the precise figures do not turn me on at all.
When I was active in this sphere, the great aim was to move people out of the slums and into decent homes. The panacea of the day was the tower block. If my memory serves me correctly, it was possible to produce twice the density of housing by using tower blocks rather than semi-detached houses, which could yield only 70 to 80 habitable rooms per acre. I recall an occasion when a tower block was opened by my late and very good friend Bob Mellish, then Minister for Housing. The tenants cried. They were overjoyed that they were going to be given their own flats—perhaps on the 17th floor of Angell House in Edmonton. They would pay the rent, whatever it was; those tenants were happy that they were going to get a place of their own. I have seen times when tenants have been angry: sometimes at the behaviour of other tenants but, in the main, at the lack of planning for the community in which they lived. We can learn from those times.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, talked with a great deal of passion and common sense. She hit a nail on the head when she said that people want to be involved; they want to participate in the management or the ownership of where they live.
I have statistics from Shelter which show that at the end of March this year the average cost of a house in the capital was £163,317, an increase of 23 per cent on the same period in 1999. The average weekly private rent for a two-bedroom property in London is £285. I found that hard to believe, but I have to believe those figures.
I realise that wages and salaries have changed, but I talk about those ordinary people—young couples starting out without a hand-out, such as a home inherited from a deceased parent or grandparent—for whom the enormity of the gap is daunting. The greatest aid they could receive from the Government, besides money, is a sense that the Government want to solve the problem. It is a matter of political will, and I hope very much that they will do it.
In the period 1992 to 1999, the funding available to registered social landlords to provide affordable housing was halved. Registered social landlords (RSLs) built fewer than 3,200 new homes in the
1146
capital. That is a derisory figure and is a result of the fact that the money made available to them was cut in half. I hope that my noble friend Lord Whitty can tell us the good news that he intends to double the present figure. I cannot see him shake his head. Yes, I can, but it is going the wrong way: he is confirming that he cannot say that, even if he might want to say it!
As noble Lords may know, I am the chairman of a body called the United Kingdom Co-operative Council. We think that co-operative housing has a great deal to offer in terms of a solution, by providing the opportunity for tenant management which is meaningful; namely, people having a say not only in the kind of house they occupy but the kind of community in which they live. I should like to see that extended.
Looking at what the Government are trying to do, I see in the Green Paper a reference to,
"tackling cowboy builders and increasing confidence in the industry amongst consumers by developing a Quality Mark scheme".
We have gone beyond the point where we were clearing hundreds of thousands of slums; we are now in the position of trying to improve both the quality of housing and the quality of life of the people living in it. I certainly applaud the Government's intention to try to give value for money in a great many of the things they are trying to do in housing. It is an enormous task but a worthy one for a Labour Government to tackle, and I wish the Minister well.
4.23 pm
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Oakeshott on his excellent maiden speech. As a councillor for many years, the point touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—namely, the heartbreak of casework, of people with housing problems—will resonate with him. The passion which he brings to this subject and which he has shown this afternoon is a result of that experience.
It is particularly welcome that we have someone with housing and planning expertise joining us on these Benches at a time when my noble friend Lady Hamwee will inevitably be somewhat involved in dealing with these issues on the GLA.
I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for introducing this debate. Given his immense expertise and experience both on SERPLAN and on Hampshire County Council, I would have some trepidation in trying to wind up a debate introduced by him.
I am very heartened by the contributions to the debate. I was slightly nervous, given its title, that we might have a regional, parochial debate about how people did not want housing in the South East and that it could go anywhere else. The debate has not turned out to be anything like that.
The Government must take on board the comments made that this is a case for a robust regional policy. While the South East remains the economic magnet of this country, its housing problems, and increasingly

1147
those of adjoining areas will magnify. The areas of the North will simply be places to leave. In such a scenario, housing policy will never cope.
Housing policy follows jobs; it should follow jobs. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford pointed to the need also for well-planned communities where people wish to live in the housing provided.
Providing a decent infrastructure is the responsibility of government. This Government have clearly said that they wish to devolve more responsibility for assessing housing need, and planning how to meet that need, to local authorities. That is welcome and all very well; but the macro environment that drives demand, or the lack of it, has to remain the responsibility of the Government. One has only to look at such issues as investment in regional airports, train links, and all sorts of infrastructure, to see why there are areas of this country where housing, far from being unaffordable as it is in London, can barely be given away.
The sort of pilot that the Government are running in the North West and the North East to allow the social housing grant to contribute to wider regeneration of an area is a start but a rather back-to-front one because many other requirements have not yet been met.
Many speakers have touched on the lessons from the past—of post-war council houses built as ghettos on their own, and swathes of large executive homes on the edges of towns and villages, also built on their own, leaving city centres abandoned. The lesson we have learned from that is that mixed housing is very important.
There is, however, a very marked reluctance on the part of the private sector to become involved in a mixed housing economy. Any requirement to include social housing—the noble Lady, Baroness Hanham, touched on these points—it often tries to avoid. If that is not possible such housing will tend to be put in the most sunless corner of the site or the area nearest the road so as not to affect the sale of private houses. If mixed housing developments are designed so as to "ghettoise" the social housing, nothing will be gained in terms of community.
Many speakers have said that the additional homes we should be building must be affordable. The Government have still not given a definition of affordability. This not only applies to the rented sector; it also means what is affordable for people trying to purchase houses.
Will the Minister confirm the figure cited by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, that there is a target of 40 per cent? My noble friend Lord Oakeshott pointed out that, to the best of his knowledge, the target is substantially lower.
Many people do want to get onto the housing ladder and buy their own home. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, pointed out the value of schemes like the DIYSO scheme, which has enabled people to start on the ladder. Shared ownership is one way to lessen the divide between the rented sector and the purchased sector.
1148
How can we make better use of brownfield sites? That is another issue which has been widely debated. How much progress have the Government made with the scheme mentioned in Planning for the Communities of the Future, which they published in February 1998? Their stated intention was to set up, as a high priority, a national land use database, with the aim of establishing which brownfield sites could be recycled. Are the Government content with the speed at which brownfield sites are being recycled?
Solutions to many of the questions raised in the debate were well presented in the excellent report by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, Towards an Urban Renaissance. I do not believe that we have debated the report. Not to do so would be a loss to this House. Through the use of satellite pictures, the report shows the extent of housing sprawl across the country. It shows, more graphically than any other means I can think of, the reason why we need to contain housing. It also spells out brilliantly how we might begin to revive our cities and large towns by creating places that are desirable to live in.
Perhaps I may quote from the recommendations in the report, which come under the heading, "Sustaining the Renaissance"—and we have not yet arrived at renaissance. The report states:
"A balanced national economy will allow for more even distribution of economic opportunity and income within cities, between cities and between regions. Key social indicators, such as educational achievement, health, crime and poverty, will have improved".
Many noble Lords touched on the point that housing is not a subject unto itself and that we must move away from the point where housing is considered simply in land use terms, divorced from other issues.
The recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, on how to achieve a desirable urban environment in which to live and bring up children are not a pipe-dream. But such schemes require adequate investment. They require a planning system that can be imaginative and responsive to the needs of communities, rather than one that is driven by the fear of appeals. If local authorities are free to deliver housing that is fit for the 21st century, they must be free to negotiate the kind of planning gains, in consultation with their communities following exercises such as Planning for Real, which can produce a community response on the kind of housing and development that people want to see. Local authorities need to be able to assemble land for development, using compulsory purchase orders that do not rely solely on the economic case. They need to be able to present the wider case. They need also to be able to remove greenfield sites from development plans it they are able to look again at brownfield sites. Local authorities can do a huge amount, but only if they are free to deliver.
Finally, I have to say from these Benches how thoroughly disappointing the Green Paper was in finding no new resources to address the chronic lack of affordable housing. We agree that the freeing up of councils' capital receipts is an extremely good step forward. Encouraging stock transfer as a means of

1149
bringing in private investment is another way in which some goals can be achieved. Nevertheless, the Government should not begin to imagine that a substantial amount of affordable housing can be delivered, or that the huge backlog of repairs for social rented housing and sub-standard housing can be addressed in the absence of any new resources. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to say whether in the foreseeable future some of the Government's "war chest" is likely to be redirected towards affordable housing.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest as a farmer and landowner in the county of Essex, where the possibility of land coming up for development is an ever-present reality.
This House must be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for once again focusing our attention on the issue of development in the South East. This a vexing and thorny issue and will undoubtedly continue to be a matter of controversy for the foreseeable future, and even beyond. There is presently a serious difference of opinion between the Secretary of State, who has overall responsibility for strategic planning matters in the region, and many of the local authorities which are responsible for implementation. The noble Earl has unparalleled expertise and experience in dealing with the subject.
It is a pleasure also to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, who is yet another Member with long and intimate experience of local government. When I first came to this House, local government was not strongly represented. I am glad that in the intervening years that matter has been put right.
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, began his remarks with a discussion of a report published in 1972. I was struck by how immensely familiar the content of the report was. Indeed, if it were merely redated, it could have been written today. If one thought that that was all that had happened, one might become rather depressed and assume that society had learnt nothing in the intervening years.
In fact, many local authorities across the region have had very successful development plans, and those plans have produced communities. I well remember when, in Essex, we were opening a major education project every 10 days in order to provide school facilities for the new communities that were coming onstream. In the same period, shopping centres and libraries were being built, and other services, such as the police and the fire services, were being expanded, together with the necessary communications infrastructure.
It is true that, in those days, estate development tended to comprise only one type of housing. However, if we look at more recent projects, we see good, integrated estate development going on—required by planning authorities. So we do not have cause for absolute gloom, although the problems are
1150
always with us. I do not think that we shall find a solution today. I sympathise with the Minister to the extent that we might be able to have exactly the same debate in 2015!
In the past, we have seen huge investment in regional expenditure and strategy in an attempt to attract housing and employment to other parts of the country. That has been successful to a degree. However, what it has not done is reduce the "honey-pot" effect of the South East. The South East is the engine that pulls the national train—and I am bound to say that we cannot afford to stop that engine.
The background to this debate has been exposed to public discussion for many months. As we have heard, SERPLAN, the South East's regional planning body, representing all the south-eastern planning authorities, published its report in anticipation of new planning guidance from the Government. The report was examined in detail by government-appointed inspectors during May and June last year. Their examination was followed by a controversial report from the inspectors which this House debated on a Motion introduced by the noble Earl in November last year. Now, six months later, we have the opportunity, again on a Motion tabled by the noble Earl, to debate the Government's conclusions and recommendations, which were announced in March.
It comes as no surprise that the Government have satisfied very few members of local government, whose views had already been voiced through the original SERPLAN report; nor have the Government brought immense pleasure to the communities in the region because this is an extremely sensitive matter. Public expectations are intimately involved, and there is a very real concern about maintaining the quality of life in the region as a whole. One could have an argument as to whether it is possible to satisfy the community in this matter; personally, I doubt whether it is. It has always been my experience of life that the most passionate objectors to phase three of a development are those who move in during phase two.
I draw attention to three particular points. First, the Government are depending on achieving a high proportion of their development on brownfield sites in order to reduce the land-take in other areas and justify what are perceived to be very high allocations. Even disregarding the question of whether this faster building rate they are targeting is actually achievable, they have done nothing until now to create a real incentive to encourage such urban brownfield regeneration.
We have heard again today about the difficulties that result from the fact that new houses do not have VAT attached to them while repairs and renovations to existing buildings do. In effect, that is a 17.5 per cent financial disincentive against urban renewal and redevelopment in inner-city areas. The case has been argued in this House on other occasions, and I thought that the principle had been accepted. However, the Government have still not found it possible to do anything. It remains the fact, however, that for so long as these matters are ignored, there will continue to be

1151
pressure for greenfield sites to be allocated for development because they can provide cheaper housing, they are generally easier to develop, and they can be brought forward more quickly.
If the Government are really serious about this matter, they could perhaps even go further than the VAT question and create specific regimes of taxation for brownfield developments to provide real incentives for developers to overcome the hurdles of land reclamation costs with all the high risks than can be involved. That is hugely important in this region where we have about 30 per cent of the national population, but only about 7 per cent of the national supply of brown field land.
My second point concerns the practicality of confirming the house building targets for the next five years only. I accept that one can never be certain about the housing market. The only thing one has to say about the existing level of the housing market is that it would not be at that level if people could not afford it. It is people who make house prices what they are, and one has to supply housing within that. As the opportunities for small in-fill sites across the region have disappeared under relentless pressure over the years, increasingly one is looking for large new developments.
Finally, I come to the matter of social housing—it is vital for the development of a proper community—and to the question of affordable housing. I was depressed to hear the matter of Section 106 agreements being described as "bribes" to the planning authority to obtain planning permission. The fact of the matter is that Section 106 agreements on large developments can make a really major contribution to the availability of social housing at no cost to the authority at all because, in effect, the cost is loaded on to the rest of the development. The virtue of Section 106 agreements is that they retain in the community that generates the demand the benefits, such as social housing, which also go with development.
We have had a good debate. The right reverend Prelate touched a chord with me when he began by saying that homes are more than houses. He is, of course, absolutely correct, but one cannot have a home at all if one does not have a house.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for initiating this debate. I think that the range of opinions expressed has indicated its importance. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott—whether he is writing his own speeches, or delivering the speeches he has written I should say—for it is not everybody who can find a text from 1972 and recycle it; I know that I could not. His knowledge of housing, and many other areas, will bring lucidity and calm in the face of what amounted to robustness in your Lordships' House as he rose to speak. I appreciate that he has experienced robustness of different sorts at various stages in his career., so I expect he can put up with that.
Things have moved on considerably since we debated this issue on 15th December, again at the instigation of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. We are
1152
in the middle of consulting on our proposed changes to the draft regional planning guidance for the South East, one of the first to be prepared under this Government's new process. Therefore, we are at a delicate but important stage.
Stepping back from the RPG, it was opportune for my noble friend Lady Uddin and the right reverend Prelate in particular, to remind us of the importance of housing, as it covers every aspect of our yes, our security, our life chances, our health and the nature of the communities in which we live. The Government's vision on housing is guided by central principles of sustainability, economically and physically, and also as socialists. It is the spatial dimension of that approach to housing that is reflected in the regional planning guidance. As the noble Lord implied, I think we share this vision largely with SERPLAN and the Regional Planning Conference for the South East. It is a vision that is based very firmly on the principles of sustainable development.
The social aspect of housing was emphasised by my noble friend Lady Uddin, who made particular reference to the situation in Tower Hamlets. But throughout the South East and London enormous problems still remain in relation to housing of various descriptions. There are deep social problems Those problems have not improved hugely over the past 20 years. Therefore, one of the key issues is housing for the future. There are those who say that the figures that even SERPLAN, Professor Crow and the Government are producing means concreting over the South East. That is not the case. It is not the Government or SERPLAN that are putting pressure on the South East. The economic pressure is there; the demographic pressure is there; the pressure of migration is there already. The important question is how we manage it.
The housing needs in the South East outside London derive, in very large part, from the needs of the people who are already in the region as well as these additional pressures. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, there are very serious external pressures on the housing market within London, much of them international. They affect the prices and the whole nature of property development so that almost every property in London is now described as a luxury flat and is beyond the reach of many middle-income families. She is absolutely right. That has its knock-on effect down the property market, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, indicated, when we come to look at the relatively poor provision of accommodation for young single people in our capital.
In the context of SERPLAN, we have proposed an annual increase of 43,000 homes outside London and 23,000 inside Greater London. The regional guidance process that we have adopted leads to an agreed regional target for net additional dwellings SERPLAN's estimate, which was subject to public consultation and examination, was reassessed by the panel chaired by Professor Crow. We agree that a figure above SERPLAN's estimate is necessary but not as high as that suggested by Professor Crow. In implementing the new approach we have proposed an

1153
annual rate of growth for ongoing development. That will be reviewed at least every five years but sooner if there are signs of major over- or under-provision. We have also had to consider in this context how the provision should be distributed across the South East. We are not satisfied that a pro rata housing distribution based on SERPLAN's proposals is appropriate, which is why we have not put forward such a distribution in our proposed changes, Instead, we have put forward an illustrative distribution and invited comment on how it can better reflect the spatial strategy. I hope that SERPLAN will be able to respond positively to that dimension of our proposals.
I turn to the situation in London itself. The adoption of a planned, monitored and managed approach with the provision of 23,000 additional dwellings per year in London is very much in line with what the London Planning Advisory Committee believed could be achieved. As the noble Earl indicated, in view of the new local government structure in London we shall need to give careful consideration to the views of the mayor. It is very important that the social housing dimension of the mayor's planning responsibilities is co-ordinated with that of the London Boroughs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, implied, to see how the overall level of provision should be distributed and delivered within London. The mayor will want to keep under regular review both the housing requirement and the capacity to meet it.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton pointed to the problems in the area of social housing and called for additional resources. We have provided no less than £5 billion. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, regarded that as not real money, but those funds were not previously available for this purpose and are now being deployed on a priority basis for the improvement of the housing stock, principally local authority housing.
With regard to brownfield land, we strongly support the strategy of SERPLAN for an urban renaissance that focuses development on existing urban areas and brownfield sites throughout the region. We have set a recycling target of 60 per cent which is underpinned by our new policy guidance PPG3. I accept that there are problems in connection with recycling land in the South East and elsewhere, but we believe that there is substantial land available. As to the urban parts of the South East and London itself, the Urban Task Force has set a number of objectives which will be turned into a White Paper later in the year. We have also recently published a draft strategy for neighbourhood renewal. All of this has a bearing on how we mobilise the brownfield sites that are already available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked whether the database on brownfield sites had worked. I can assure the noble Baroness that the results of our first survey have been published. The survey represents an audit as of two years ago of land available for recycling, and that will be updated next year.
1154
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked about VAT in relation to brownfield sites. Regrettably, that is a matter for the Chancellor, not me. Nevertheless, the Chancellor has said that, where appropriate, he will consider the use of economic measures to underpin urban policy. That is where the matter lies at present. A number of proposals have been put forward for changing the VAT regime and perhaps equalising the rate. The Chancellor will be looking at these and other suggestions in the fiscal field by the task force headed by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers.
Research shows that often local authorities underestimate urban capacity in their areas. That tends to reinforce existing restrictive planning policy rather than contribute to urban renaissance. Part of that issue is density. In the South East we have been building at some of the lowest densities in the whole country. On the one hand, many say that land is so precious that we cannot build on it as many houses as we need; on the other hand, local authorities and developers make little attempt to build more economically and provide lower density housing, let alone affordable or social housing. This means that to meet housing requirements one uses far more land than is necessary.
We need to plan for a wider range of housing, more smaller units and less lavish provision for the car in residential layouts. We also need to look at more sustainable patterns of development and movement. This is not a call for what some refer to as town planning; on the contrary, it is a call for an urban renaissance and more efficient use of land in town, suburb and country. Many local authorities are beginning to heed that call in a very creative way in both the South East and London. In the case of the latter local authorities have led the way on the basis of the work of the London Planning Advisory Committee. We place even greater emphasis than SERPLAN on better urban design and layout. As the right reverend Prelate indicated, it is very important that in the urban renaissance we regard housing as provision for the totality of the community, not simply the physical provision of housing and housing sites. In the urban renaissance we need to provide for the wider community. There is a clear element of design and build in this. Recently we published further guidance on this matter in the document By Design—Urban Design in the Planning System: Towards Better Practice.
The noble Earl and others expressed concern about the difficulties in implementing the broadly-agreed strategy, in particular the mechanisms available to local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, rightly, that there had been much good practice in local authorities in past decades in providing effective and often affordable housing. We seek to strengthen the ability of local authorities to achieve a more balanced housing provision in their areas. Some of the main delivery mechanisms range from new measures to ensure that there is affordable housing—I shall mention those in a moment—to possible new CPO powers and financial incentives. Those matters are being examined at national level in the context of

1155
overall policy. It is unrealistic to expect them to be reflected in a particular RPG, but they are being addressed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said, we have recently published revised guidance on housing in PPG3. In addition, we have recently produced a White Paper on housing which provides a way forward, despite the disappointment expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. As to that, I have already addressed the issue of resources. We are also looking at how compulsory purchase powers can assist regeneration initiatives. We are using some of the £5 billion referred to earlier in particular to regenerate areas of local authority housing, and the forthcoming urban White Paper will clarify policy and other mechanisms to achieve an urban renaissance. In parallel, in July we shall announce a 10-year transport strategy and, later in the year, a rural White Paper which will be important milestones in the delivery of RPG. In particular, we are putting forward proposals in the South East for a new strategic partnership in the Thames Gateway area. We believe that that is an important contribution to the attempt to deal with pressures in the South East.
As to affordable housing, I hear the concerns of noble Lords on all sides about the problem of delivering the appropriate proportion of affordable housing. There are already very robust provisions in planning policy which allow local authorities to seek affordable housing as part of residential developments on suitable sites. That is an important tool which is available to local authorities. The proposed changes will emphasise the need for local authorities to undertake a rigorous assessment of housing need to ensure that sufficient affordable homes are provided.
There is a case for more flexibility in planning for affordable housing in parts of the South East, and PPG3 and the housing Green Paper provide a lead on this. For the purposes of planning policy, while definitions in this area can be fuzzy, affordable housing is low-cost market and subsidised housing that is available to people who cannot afford to rent or buy houses that are generally available on the open market. That definition is deliberately wide in order that local circumstances can be met. Local authorities are able to seek an element of such housing to be provided on all sites of 25 dwellings or one hectare or more. Thresholds are lower in inner London and, exceptionally, may be lower elsewhere.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked whether there was a 40 per cent target for the whole of the South East. In line with our general approach, an overall affordable housing target is considered inappropriate. Nevertheless, an indicator has been included in the Government's proposals that an annual average of 18,000 to 19,000 houses be provided within the total figure for the South East outside London. However, in order to contribute to that, specific targets should be made locally. Broadly for the period as a whole, the figures add up to those mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. However, as I said, as part of that requirement we want local
1156
authorities to make an assessment of their local housing needs and their ability to provide affordable housing.
Of course, it is true that questions of balance arise between the regions in this respect and the south-east region is under particular pressure. It is not so true, as is often alleged, and as, I believe, may have been implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the problems in the South East relate to those of low economic performance in the other regions of England. The migration from the rest of the South East is net outwards from all other regions except London. The migratory pressure on the South East comes almost exclusively from London. The movement from regions outside London into the rest of the South East and, indeed, even into London itself is relatively small.
However, it is important that the new regional instruments in each of the regions address the pressure on housing as well as they do on the rest of infrastructure. Therefore, I agree totally with the noble Baroness that these matters must be considered together by all regions so that a compatible approach can be produced across the board.
Perhaps I may return to the SERPLAN figures. I hope that we shall be able to consider this matter maturely and reach a cross-institutional and cross-party consensus on what is a most important issue for the whole of the South East, including London. We hope that SERPLAN will consider the implications of simply reverting to its original numbers. I believe that to do so would be to ignore part of the process that has taken place since those figures were produced and put at risk some of the key elements of the economy of the South East and London. In particular, it would not address the problem of the lack of suitable housing for those who already live or need to work in the South East, in particular those examples referred to in the debate, such as teachers, nurses and so on. We can make more effective use of urban and brownfield land in meeting those targets.
However, I agree totally with the noble Earl that the vision for the South East can be achieved only through a co-ordinated partnership. The Government's proposals for the South East set out clear guidance to local authorities on preparing development. They also identify a number of mechanisms which, between us, we can bring into play on this matter. For our part, the Secretary of State will give serious consideration to comments which we shall receive shortly on an official basis from SERPLAN, including comments on the housing figures, before we decide finally whether to make further changes to the RPG.
We want to resolve the problems of pressure on the housing market and the social consequences that they create. I can assure my noble friend Lord Graham that we give a high priority to housing improvements and housing policy generally. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is not literally accurate in saying that the arguments and the situation at present are precisely the same as they were in 1972. I do not believe that they are. For some people the situation is better;

1157
for some, it is worse. However, there are elements of continuity. With all due respect to the noble Lord, I certainly hope that he is wrong when he says that we shall be having the same debate (at least, I hope that he and I will not be having the same debate) in the year 2015, although my noble friend Lord Graham may well be!
As a government, we are committed to tackling the housing problem. We are committed to putting in place effective and consensual planning arrangements region by region. Probably the first in which we have encountered problems is in many respects the most difficult. However, we hope that we can resolve the issues between ourselves, SERPLAN, the local authorities and the other key players in the South East.
Again, I thank the noble Earl for initiating this debate and thank all other noble Lords who have contributed.
5.4 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I believe that the debate began at 3.7 p.m. Therefore, I have approximately 90 seconds in which to reply. I believe that it produced a very important message to both SERPLAN and the Government: that strategic planning for housing is about not only numbers but, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said, it is about homes. He changed the word "houses" to "homes", and I thoroughly agree with and underline what he said. "Homes" mean community facilities, transportation, leisure and affordability.
With regard to affordability, the point was made—again, I underline this—that that means affordability for renting and for buying. I referred to the five-bedroomed houses in Tower Hamlets, built by the Asian housing association, which rent at £85 per week. When I visited Tower Hamlets I was struck by figures which seemed to me quite incredible. The average earned wage in that area is £600 per week, but one-third of the ratepayers of Tower Hamlets have a yearly income of under £10,000. That is an incredible diversity.
I believe that this has been a useful debate. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Coastal Erosion
5.6 p.m.
Lord Bridgesrose to call attention to the long-term problems caused by coastal erosion; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject on which we now embark is no less contentious and difficult than that which we have just been debating. However, it is a good deal less well known. My motive in tabling the Motion is to try to draw public attention
1158
to the consequences of coastal erosion and to invite the Government to review some of their current arrangements for policy-making.
In order to understand this whole topic, one must begin with a brief account of the cause of the increase in coastal erosion which is taking place. The underlying cause of the growing problem is, of course, the increase in global warming. The Government have done much good work on this topic during their period of office, having undertaken a major publicity campaign to make the extent of global warming better known and having taken some difficult and rather controversial decisions to implement the agreements made at the Rio conference.
I have no quarrel with their actions on global warming. However, I suggest that the record on coastal erosion is somewhat less satisfactory. Erosion of our coastline is by no means a new phenomenon. The last time the matter was considered seriously by government was in 1905 when a Royal Commission was set up. It reported six years later. Things were evidently more leisurely in those days. The chairman was Lord Ashby of St Legers and the writer, Sir Rider Haggard, was one of its members.
The commission did much to establish a proper understanding of the main processes involved, particularly the way in which beaches are created. It explained that while beach material may be moved along the coastline and reshaped, that material provides the best protection against erosion. Therefore, the material should not be removed or lost. Interestingly, the commission concluded that in the previous century more land had been gained through accretion and drainage than by erosion. That is not something that we could say today. There has been a big and lasting change in the situation.
The outbreak of the First World War and the years of social and economic difficulty which followed diverted attention to more urgent issues and nothing was done. It is of particular regret that nothing was done to implement the recommendation that responsibility for all coastline issues should be concentrated in a single department. There is now good reason to regret that failure of political processes two generations ago. Coastal erosion is now a major problem for many regions of this country, particularly on the east and south coasts where the beaches and cliffs are made of soft and historically recent sedimentary deposits.
It is calculated that because of global warming, the sea level around our shores can be expected to rise by about half a metre over the next century. That reflects what is happening globally. The estimate is a gradual rise of between 40 and 50 centimetres per year by the year 2100. To that, unfortunately, must be added the continued steady sinking of the shoreline of eastern England, estimated to be a small amount of perhaps 2 millimetres annually as the underlying rocks adjust gradually to the thawing of the heavy layer of ice which used to cover north-west Britain in pre-historic times.
It is interesting that the deglaciation which took place in the 7th millennium BC is still having major consequences on our climate and the level of coastal

1159
erosion. The next deglaciation of the polar icecaps will also affect us. We can only speculate about what it will do. But it appears, for example, that the melting of the Greenland icecap may cause a diversion of the Gulf Stream in a northerly direction through the Denmark Strait and between Greenland and Iceland, turning its warm waters away from the west coast of Scotland towards Spitsbergen, the Barents Sea, Franz Josef Land and points east.
I venture to mention that because while the nature and extent of coastal erosion is uncertain in many respects, there is no doubt about its importance to us as a nation living as we do in a densely-populated group of islands surrounded by strong tidal currents washing vigorously against a soft coastline. Of our neighbours in Europe, only the Netherlands and Belgium have a greater density of population. We all know how seriously the Dutch take their coastal defences. It is my plea that we should do likewise.
I wish to make a specific suggestion that the Government should take steps to inform local authorities of the need to avoid construction of houses or factories in areas particularly at risk. It seems, for example, that the Thames Barrier will be unable to control serious occasional floods in London, even if the barrier and the embankment are, increased in height. I have seen predictions that parts of London close to the Thames can expect such floods to occur regularly in the next century. I suggest that the DETR should make it a priority to inform local authorities concerned of the areas most likely to be affected and for local plans to be revised to avoid new construction there.
I should also like to draw attention to the publicity given in East Anglia where I live to the Government's evident desire to promote a new, high-technology electronic science park in a Fen between Cambridge and Huntingdon. As much of that area is below sea level and perhaps 35 miles from the Wash, that seems a little imprudent. Perhaps I may also remind the noble Baroness of the loss of the baggage train of King John containing all his portable values and current cash resources in that very area in October 1216. I suggest it would he mistaken to make such an important investment in that vulnerable area, at least until all the necessary improvements have been made to the coastal defences. We hear a great deal about joined-up thinking, but I think we would want to avoid joined-up swimming.
I turn to the organisation of the Government's work in this field. Traditionally, the Minister of Agriculture has been responsible for drainage and sea defences, and that is the case today. Policy advice on all-important technical aspects is provided by the Environment Agency which in turn derives expert knowledge from the Government's hydraulics research institute at Wallingford known as HR Wallingford, an expert group of international reputation.
Local knowledge is provided by the flood defence committees (FDCs) whose members are appointed partly by the Ministry of Agriculture and partly by
1160
county councils. Sector plans are drawn up by the FDCs. Their operations are funded by county councils and the rate support grant. It is, of course, the Treasury in Whitehall which controls the rate support grant. I do not believe that that is the ideal arrangement in the present circumstances. I must presume that Whitehall outlines the maximum spending limits, the spending envelope, and that that is the determining factor which shapes both the nature of expert advice as well as the decision of the local defence committee.
To illustrate what happens, I propose to quote from recent events in the area in which I live. My home is in a village in east Suffolk which lies on the estuary of the Alde and Ore, a single river which changes its name, confusingly, in mid-course. Rising in central Suffolk, it follows an easterly course until it reaches Aldeburgh where it meets a shingle bank dividing river and sea, perhaps only 30 metres wide. Here it turns south through 90 degrees and runs parallel to the sea for about 10 miles being separated from the sea by the substantial shingle spit of Orford Ness.
My home is 16 feet above sea level and some way from the river. We are in no danger of early immersion and I own no property beyond my home and garden, but I have a grandstand view of what is happening. A plan is being prepared for future management of the estuary. The Environment Agency appointed a firm of reputable consultants called Posford Duvivier, which worked in association with HR Wallingford. The terms of reference for that work were drawn so as to fall within MAFF funding guidelines. It is thus not surprising that a large area of land was held to be impossible to defend and was included in a special category called "Managed Retreat". That concept means that the existing earth embankments will not be reinforced or maintained and will be allowed to succumb to tidal action in the hope that each successive tidal flow will leave behind a sediment, thus encouraging fresh plant growth and recreating a self-sustaining grazing marsh. That is the hope. There have, indeed, been some places on the east coast. where the plan has worked. But it is not yet clear whether that will work on Orford Ness where Lantern Marshes were for centuries a grazing marsh for animals.
First indications are unclear, but it is feared that the increased tidal currents will scour the plants still living on the marsh leaving behind a new, large, unusable mudflat of interest only to passing wading birds. Having inspected the site recently, I am inclined to suspend judgment for a while, but many of my neighbours suspect that the whole concept of managed retreat in this environment is unsound. It seems that the financial envelope within which the consultants operated did not permit them to consider seriously the option of a tidal barrier at the entrance to the estuary. I certainly think that that should have been looked a t as we are told that the tidal flow in our estuary may increase in volume by as much as 40 per cent and in velocity by as much as 50 per cent. A tidal barrier would have tackled that problem at source.

1161
Under current policy we shall lose some 5,000 acres of cultivated land if irrigated land made unusable through the entry of salt water into the aquifer is taken into account. This is a matter of some importance locally. It is an area which previously had been much dedicated to animal husbandry but, since the effects of the common agricultural policy, the animals have largely gone. The inventive local farmers have turned to light land irrigated from the aquifer on which they grow market garden crops and irrigated sugar beet. This will all stop once the salt gets into the aquifer and the water would not be able to be used for irrigation.
There is also the question of financial loss and insurance. House insurance does not normally cover damage caused by flood but prudent householders can generally obtain it for an extra charge. Let us take a common example. An elderly couple who decide to move to a coastal district on retirement may calculate that the rate of erosion they observe happening will not affect their home during their lifetimes. But if the sea accelerates its advance to, say, the one metre per year which is happening on the coast between Aldeburgh and Southwold, the family I postulate, would not be able to obtain or continue flood insurance cover when the sea approached their property. The property would become unsaleable in those circumstances. Such situations cause much human tragedy and one hears of families having to move into tents or trailers.
The House of Commons Select Committee, which reported on July 1988, recommended,
"a robust financial mechanism for the reimbursement of property holders whose assets are sacrificed for the wider benefit of the community".
I believe that was well put.
The Government reply says that,
"transferring these responsibilities to the public sector would be expensive and difficult to justify".
Sniff! But surely it is difficult to justify doing nothing. In that regard I have a small practical suggestion to offer. Could not the Government examine a scheme like that in the United States, which has a national flood insurance scheme organised and underwritten by the federal government. That would not be unlike the underwriting in the last resort of the damage caused by riots in the City of London, which our Government already do after the breakdown of law and order. The two situations seem fairly analogous. In my book, the Government have a responsibility to protect our citizens and their homes and property from coastal erosion. After all, it is not something they can undertake by themselves.
Underlying all that, my main anxiety concerns the Government's administrative arrangements. It does not make much sense to me that a predetermined sum of money is fixed before an estimate is made of the damage which would be suffered if no protection is put in place. What we lack on coastal defence arrangements is a proper threat analysis, followed by an examination of what feasible defences might cost and what the value of lost property may amount to. That approach is not unlike that recommended by the
1162
Agriculture Committee in the other place. The Government's considered reply indicates a strong preference for the status quo. I urge them to reconsider this whole question. What is happening on our river suggests that the current system is not working and needs proper re-examination.
The Government's dilemma is, in a curious way, rather well summed-up in a poem by a 17th century writer, Andrew Marvell, in his poem called "The character of Holland". Marvell was a Cambridge scholar who succeeded Milton as Cromwell's Latin secretary. He knew Holland well and his poem contained the following six lines:
"Therefore necessity, that first made Kings,
Something like Government among them brings.
For as with pygmees who best kills the Crane [a large bird]
Among the hungry he that treasures Grain,
Among the blind the one-eyed blinkard reigns,
So rules among the drowned he that draines".
Paraphrasing Marvell's message in our own times, I believe it means this. If we live on an island, we must take care to defend it. Otherwise our successors at the end of the century may find that they live on an island of a very different shape. They may even lack the terrain on which their legs may stand.
This is one of those long-term problems which tend to be pushed to one side by other urgent tasks, and there are always plenty of them. But I hope that this Government, with their strong majority and sense of purpose, can address it in the way that it deserves. If they can do that, our successors will be grateful and know to whom to give the credit.
I look forward to hearing the other speakers on this subject. It is a pleasure to know that we are to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord. Lord Hunt of Chesterton, and I shall listen with great attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, says in reply for the Government. We know how seriously she prepares for these occasions. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for introducing this timely debate. This gives me the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a topic that could hardly be more important for this House; namely, the future of our coasts and of the endangered communities which reside there. My great-grandfather built a home in Seagrove Bay, Isle of Wight, on clay foundations. It slipped into the sea 40 years later. I am sure that the new Baron Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, whose home is nearby, will be more fortunate.
My training as an engineer, specialising in hydrodynamics, led on to a career in universities, industry and consulting. I worked on practical and research problems concerned with the environment, meteorology and climate. Indeed, our current research at University College touches on the polar questions just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.
I developed an interest in coastal problems and sea level rise when, for five and a half years, I was responsible for climate change research at the Hadley

1163
Centre, which is part of the Meteorological Office. Also, as chief executive of a trading fund agency of the Ministry of Defence, I oversaw more than 30 contracts with departments and agencies of government. I concluded that government can deal efficiently with complex problems through well-constructed, devolved arrangements between responsible agencies, provided that the overall objectives are clear, as again the noble Lord. Lord Bridges, explained.
I should like to raise a few points about how government and other responsible organisations can best manage the effects of climate change on coastal erosion. It is, I believe, a custom that a maiden speech is not controversial. Therefore, it is fortunate that in this country global warming is an accepted fact. That is not the case in some other countries.
International research has concluded that, as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases, averages of ground-level air temperature will rise between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years. That will produce average rises in sea level of between 0.3 and 0.5 metres over that time—again, figures which have just been mentioned. One hopes that the efforts of the international community, in which the UK plays a leading role, will be successful in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But even then the sea level will continue to rise for around another 100 years.
Another consequence of climate change is the likelihood of increasing floods driven by high winds and bigger ocean waves reaching our coast. The forecasting of coastal floods are now generally reliable, thanks to the computer models developed by the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory and the Meteorological Office. They enable warnings to be given up to five days in advance in some situations. They are used in the operation of the Thames Barrier and for flood warnings to communities. Such forecasts and warning procedures are essential, but are complementary to the long-term measures that have to be introduced for managing these coastal areas over the next 100 years. They will be expensive and may involve communities in considerable upheaval. The Government have a particular responsibility to explain those developments and to ensure that appropriate investigations and basic research are undertaken now to ensure that the right decisions are taken.
I was interested to read that in 1998 the agriculture committee and the speakers in the following debate in the other place all agreed about the progressive worsening of coastal flooding problems and that climate change would further exacerbate them. They and the Government agreed that flexible approaches are needed, with "hard" engineering solutions in some areas, but "adaptive" solutions in others to allow for controlled flooding of salt marshes and to develop the agriculture and landscape appropriately. It may even be possible to develop new economic activities, such as fishing and tourism from rising sea levels and warming sea temperatures, as some coastal areas return to the
1164
forms they had hundreds of years ago. Some historians have noted that there was as much employment in East Anglia before the Fens were drained as afterwards.
That brings me to the first of my three points. Choice of appropriate technical, economic and ecological long-term solutions are, at this stage of our knowledge, quite uncertain. Despite the recent advances in the subject based on the contributions of the great Victorian giants of hydrodynamics, Lord Kelvin, who was a Member of this House, and Sir George Gabriel Stokes, who was MP for Cambridge University in the other place, there are still major uncertainties in how large waves and currents interact in coastal waters. In geology there are uncertainties about how coastal sediments will move as the sea level rises. Engineering predictions can be at fault. There have been recent examples of sea defence works that have damaged the local environment and deterred tourism.
Not surprisingly, local communities now want to know more about those and all other environmental developments, what to expect and with what confidence technical solutions are being proposed. So it is essential that there be no further reduction in the research budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The research results from its work should be widely published as they become available. Indeed, the Royal Society made that point in recent submissions to the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser.
Next, as the agriculture committee indicates, there should be international comparisons, and I would add collaboration, in dealing with these problems. As chief executive of the Meteorological Office, I was the UK representative at the World Meteorological Organisation, which is the United Nations technical agency responsible not only for meteorology and climatology, but also for the practical aspects of flooding and water resources.
However, despite the huge economic and social importance of operational hydrology, as the subject is called, that activity within that organisation receives about 20 per cent of the funds received for meteorology. Within that organisation and in Whitehall I called attention to that anomalous situation, which is based on the misguided distinction of meteorology being international and hydrology being national because flooding and water movement are local factors, whereas winds blow across continents.
The fact is that coastal problems and rising sea levels are huge international problems. Our European neighbours in the Netherlands have much to tell us. Their research from practical experience is second to none, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned. I believe that the UK's work on coastal problems should be developed in an international context. Meteorology greatly benefits from regular international comparisons in which, incidentally, the Meteorological Office does very well. Hydrology should move in the same direction.

1165
My last point concerns the matter of leadership in this area. I welcome the emerging consensus that the Environment Agency should be more emphatic in its technical and administrative roles for coastal and flooding problems. Therefore, it would be natural if it became the lead agency for representing the UK at the World Meteorological Organisation in operational hydrological matters, and contributing to the costs of those international activities. Currently, that position is held by the excellent research establishment, the Institute of Hydrology, but it cannot provide the requisite funding.
I should like to thank the House of Lords' Library for help with background material. I thank your Lordships for your patient attention to these important technical and administrative issues. I hope that I may be able to return to them in later debates.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, it falls to me, on behalf of the whole House, to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, to our counsels and to congratulate him on his most expert and thoughtful maiden speech. He comes to us as a Fellow of the Royal Society and currently professor in climate modelling at University College, London. I am not sure whether he will thank me for reporting that he was educated at Westminster School and at what I, as a Cambridge man, venture to call the better half of Oxbridge. Why is it not called "Camford"? That would afford us a certain amount of concealment from the attacks of Gordon Brown and others.
The noble Lord achieved his PhD at Warwick and after a short spell with the Central Electricity Research Laboratories, became a fellow of Cambridge University, senior research fellow at Trinity, and lecturer, reader and professor in fluid mechanics. Then he graced various American universities as visiting professor at Colorado, Arizona, Stamford and perhaps others.
The noble Lord had a spell as an entrepreneur with the Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Limited and amidst all that he found time to be leader of the Labour group on Cambridge County Council. His most controversial sounding job to date was with the European Research Community on flow turbulence and combustion. Otherwise, there is not a quiver of argumentation. I hope that he will find time to come to the House frequently when such matters are discussed and to make a contribution. I regret only that, as a fellow Cambridge man, I may have to enter a note of dissent, if he will allow that.
I apologise to my noble friend Lord Bridges for sitting within a spear-thrust of him. Although I welcome much of what he said, I am afraid that in my principal contribution I shall bear witness to the fact that independents cannot be depended upon. I am glad that he has raised this issue because it comes at an important time for discussion of a particular example of coastal erosion which is dear to my heart and, I know, it is dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
1166
It is a good subject for us to discuss because we have no constituency interest to bias our judgment: we have no concern for short-term party political pleadings: and there are no narrow ideological lobbies, I hope, to bombard us with partisan briefs. We are free to write our own speeches.
However, with all that non-party introduction there is still scope for strong differences of judgment as to what may be done. In the specific case that I shall bring before your Lordships, I find myself at odds with other noble Lords who represent powerful quangos such as the National Trust, English Nature, the Sussex Downs Conservation Board and sundry others. Against those Goliaths, I stand alone with the Birling Gap Cliff Protection Association. As chairman since 1997, I have no interest to declare beyond supporting local people and tourists in defending homes, jobs and widely-valued amenities.
I propose to focus attention on that specific example, where erosion threatens the total destruction of a picturesque, vigorous and thriving community. As the sea continues its remorseless advance by an average of about two feet per year, their plight acutely dramatises the conflict between affording a community protection, or standing idly by while the sea claims half a dozen cottage homes, a hotel, a coffee shop, a bar and restaurant, plus a large car park which is available for those who tramp over the Downs but want to have the car standing by to get them home.
Birling Gap is in East Sussex. It lies between Beachy Head and the Seven Sisters. It is the only dip in the towering cliffs between Eastbourne and the Cuckmere valley that allows access to the beach for bathing, picnicking and so on. Unlike the higher, more durable chalk cliffs on either side, Birling Gap is formed of chalk with a softer combe deposit on top, filling a dry river valley. For all its charm and amenities, that fatal geology brings two disadvantages. First, combe rock erodes far more rapidly than chalk, and, secondly, alas, it is apparently of acute scientific interest to a new species in my experience known as "geomorphologists". I believe that we shall hear more on that subject from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
An early initiative of the Birling Gap Cliff Protection Association was to test support for the continuance of the facilities by raising a local petition that called for action to halt the erosion. Without any wide publicity, over 56,000 visitors have signed up. A second initiative was to join Wealden Council in funding a study by the internationally respected coastal engineering consultants, Posford Duvivier, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bridges. Posford Duvivier's favourable report on the practicality and effectiveness of a 30-yard revetment to protect the threatened properties was obstructed by local officials until last autumn when a change in the Wealden Council led to the recommendation for planning consent.
At once the combined forces of reaction pressed for an inspector's inquiry which is to be held at Alfriston in July. Inevitably, it will be an unequal contest.

1167
Against a handful of local residents, including the noble Lord, Lord Howie, who will defend the amenities enjoyed by some 250,000 widely-scattered tourists each year, there will be pitted the big battalions of well-funded quangos such as the National Trust, English Nature, the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, plus their armies of full-time officials, backed by lawyers and assorted experts.
Of course, I acknowledge that there are two sides to the problems of coastal protection, but one test is that if the bureaucratic institutional forces ranged against us had a strong case for the "managed retreat", which in their papers is brutally called the "do nothing" policy, why have they repeatedly resorted to official obfuscation and even, in my view, chicanery?
Thus un-elected Wealden district officials revealed their own partisanship by trying to keep from elected councillors a legal counsel's opinion on the liability of land owners, not the council, to protect private property from predictable hazards. Similarly, officials at the Sussex Downs Conservation Board commissioned what I regard as a disreputable survey, based on 60 interviews against almost 60,000 petitioners in my little corner, which they quote endlessly as evidence of public opposition to cliff protection. Alas, I have to tell noble Lords that local National Trust officials obligingly expressed their support for this blatant misrepresentation.
Finally—in a much longer catalogue of official shenanigans—a local trust official tried privately to besmirch the professional integrity of Posford Duvivier as parti pris and not to be depended upon, because it dared to report that a low level barrier, or revetment, could protect the buildings at Birling Gap from the advancing sea. In the same spirit, I am afraid that the legal advisers to the National Trust went on for many long months resisting the lessons of Scarborough versus Holbeck Hall that they had a measured duty of care to undertake protection where damage was predictable and defence was both possible and affordable.
I must put on record the fact that both Martin Drury and his predecessor as Director-General of the National Trust have always shown courtesy and consideration. However, I suspect that, as with other powerful and unaccountable quangos, we are faced with what academics have come to analyse as "capture" by campaigning officials.
In similar style, these dedicated, self-absorbed experts—like their scientific colleagues who do not shrink from experimentation on human beings and foetuses—have only one use for Birling Gap; namely, as a free, natural laboratory. Their myopic interest— in layman's terms—is periodically to lake a day by the sea in order to peer into their instruments and study the processes of erosion for any light that they might conceivably cast on the history and geology of that area. In the mean while, the houses above are collapsing. We might almost admire such single-minded devotion to research—real or hypothetical—if it were not for the cost in human sacrifice imposed on innocent neighbours who seek only the peaceful enjoyment of their homes, employment and amenities.
1168
Most recently, the National Trust raised the spectre of global warming as rendering all coastal defences ineffective. The trust implies that it dare not yield on Birling Gap for fear of creating a precedent for elsewhere and what one of its officials calls "armouring the coast" of our island.
Evidence that the science of climate change is less than conclusive is suggested by the fact that Professor Stephen Schneider, a leading US apostle of global warming, was predicting global freezing in the 1970s with a new ice age in prospect. I fear that I must draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others to a particular quotation from Professor Schneider in 1989, when he said:
"To capture the public's imagination … we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic stalements, and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest".
Early projections of CO2 emissions and global warming implied the need for such a degree of reduction in greenhouse gases as would inevitably drastically reduce production, employment and GNP. One good effect of that was to galvanise increasing scientific research. As knowledge has improved, predictions of catastrophe from the 1980s have somewhat receded. I believe that our best considered response should not be to resort to Stalinist long-term comprehensive plans and prohibitions, but to encourage local, flexible adaptation, exactly as proposed by my Birling Gap Cliff Protection Association.
In direct opposition to the negative bias of scientists, my association defends a more human cause with deep historic roots. These go back at least to the 18th century when the local preoccupation was with smuggling and unwelcome French immigrants. Thomas Paine, symbolically the author of The Rights of Man, was an exciseman at Birling Gap. When the original coastguard cottages fell into the sea, the present seven cottages were built inland, around 1890. The end one has already been demolished for safety, leaving No. 2 perched a few yards from the cliff edge.
I conclude with two specific questions for the Minister. First, does she believe that remote, speculative pretensions of science should invariably take absolute precedence over the proven, immediate threat to the property, freedom and amenities of private individuals? Secondly, might the Human Rights Act 1998, which will shortly come into effect, have some bearing on the right of individuals to protect their own property against the avoidable ravages of coastal erosion?
5.46 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this very important debate. Perhaps I may follow that by saying what a privilege it is to be able to take part in the same debate as such a distinguished expert as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who made his maiden speech this afternoon. I certainly look forward to hearing many

1169
more of his speeches. Without any doubt, there is growing concern throughout England about the state of our coastlines and about the erosion of coastlines both in cliff areas and on flat coastlines where there is a risk of flooding of marshes, and so on. There is a growing number of reported incidents and problems, which increase the difficulties for local authorities on the coasts—not least at Birling Gap. I have to say that I had the privilege of visiting Birling Gap to see what all the fuss was about. What has happened there is most interesting. There is now a cliff of perhaps 25 to 30 feet between the end of the valley and the beginning of the beach. During my visit, there was ladder that one could climb up and down; indeed, it may still be there. The valley went right down to the beach when the houses there were built and one could, I assume, walk down it in Victorian times. That is the degree of erosion that has taken place.
I confess that I dabbled in geomorphology in my youth. The Seven Sisters are a classic example of what is now happening a little further on at Birling Gap. As noble Lords will recall, the Seven Sisters consist of seven what one might call "female-shaped" cliff tops, with valleys between them. Those valleys end at the cliff top. At some time in the geological/geomorphological past, those valleys would also have ended on the beach. That is the extent to which coastal erosion takes place and, indeed, is a very good example of it.
However, despite that, we have had perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 years of relative stability geologically/geomorphologically in this country. The sea level has been more or less static; the climate has been more or less equable and has not been subject to huge changes during that time; and there have not been many changes to the land mass, other than those which take place regularly and gradually year by year, and those which have been created by the activities of man—for example, the reclamation of the Fens, parts of east Yorkshire, and so on.
As I say, there has been a long period of relative stability which has coincided with the development of the densely populated, civilised society in which we now live. This may now be coming to an end. That is the danger which now faces us. We may face a period of much greater instability. In geomorphological terms, the events that matter in terms of changes to the surface and configuration of the earth, the coastline and the land are not necessarily those that take place slowly year after year. The changes that really matter are the catastrophic ones which occur as a result of often dramatic changes in climate or other changes. Those catastrophic changes have created most of the landscape which we now enjoy. The danger is that we may now be entering a period when catastrophic changes occur far more frequently than in the past 1,000 or 2,000 years.
I now refer to the past million years, give or take a year or two—the period which people call the "Ice Age" in popular terms. Geologists may refer to it as the Quaternary or Pleistocene period. Many people do not understand that we are still in that period. There have
1170
been huge changes during the past million years. There have been several onsets of glaciation and several periods in which there has been a build-up and an extension of the ice out from the polar areas and in the main mountain masses. Several times during the past million years the ice has melted away altogether. Inevitably at those times, the sea level must have been much higher than it is now. Those periods are referred to as the "interglacial periods" in the jargon.
We face the danger of entering an interglacial period in which the ice which exists on large parts of the earth's surface, particularly in the polar regions, may disappear altogether. That is the real danger that we face. It will not happen next year and probably not in the next hundred years, but it may happen in the next few hundred years if we are not careful. These processes take on a momentum of their own once they get going. The human race may now trigger such a process which will gain such momentum that we shall not be able to stop it. If that happens, we shall not face the 12 or 15-inch rise in mean sea level—I apologise to the House; I do not understand centimetres; I still think in inches—which is now forecast, probably reliably, for the next 50 years; we shall face a rise measured in feet or perhaps even in yards. That would have disastrous implications.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, said that we cannot stop the current rise in sea levels and that they will continue to rise. However, for the sake of future generations and our coastline, we must do everything possible to prevent catastrophic events occurring. Those catastrophic events would occur if there were a significant melt of the continental ice, particularly the Antarctic ice and the Greenland ice. If that occurred, we would be in serious trouble. At present, some people say that that process has already started; others say that it has not. You read the statements of one expert and hire the next! The present situation is alarming enough, but the potential for calamity is huge unless we stop the continuing increase in the amount of so-called "greenhouse" gases that are emitted into our atmosphere.
The problems in this country in this regard have been well set out by previous speakers. I refer to the rise in sea level and the differential effect of the country's tilt, in that the North West is tilting upwards while the South East is tilting downwards a little. I refer in particular to the effect of manmade structures. It is now clear—this was mentioned in the report of the Agriculture Select Committee in another place—that the effect of manmade structures on coastal erosion is even less understood than that of the natural processes that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned.
A continuous belt of our coastline between Durham and Dorset is in a permanent state of difficulty with regard to erosion, or at least local authorities and other agencies which are responsible for it face that difficulty. The rest of the coastline may not experience such uninterrupted erosion, but there are nevertheless great difficulties in many places. In my part of the country, the North West, the Lancashire coast south

1171
of Southport, Morecambe Bay and the Dee estuary at Chester are just three areas which are experiencing problems in this regard at the moment.
In preparing my speech, I consulted a number of my political colleagues in different parts of the country. I consulted colleagues in east Yorkshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Kent, Sussex and in other places. I was interested to note that they made similar points. They were almost unanimous in their views. First, there is continued concern at the division of the legal responsibility for coastal erosion and flooding. That point was also brought out in the House of Commons Select Committee report. Coastal erosion and flooding are two sides of the same coin. Erosion causes flooding and flooding causes erosion. They simply cannot be considered separately. The development of shoreline management plans and other measures introduced by the Government have improved the situation. However, there is still a basic problem in terms of the legal framework.
Secondly, a distinction is drawn between urban coasts and rural coasts. My colleague in another place, the MP for Torbay, Adrian Sanders, raised that matter some time ago in an Adjournment debate. Much of the activity of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to counter coastal erosion is concentrated on rural coasts. Coastal resorts, which depend on their beaches to attract tourists, and depend on them for their economic survival, do not necessarily receive the same treatment.
There is much concern about finance. Again, I recognise that in the past 18 months progress has been made and that this year the budget has been increased for the first time for some years. However, small district councils face severe problems. A colleague of mine on Lewes District Council in Sussex reports that of the revenue budget of £8 million a year, £1 million is allocated to repayment of debt and other charges on capital projects connected with coastal work. That is a huge imposition on a small district council. That figure takes into account the grants that the council received for that work.
There is a widespread belief that there are still too many different authorities looking into this matter. This is the case at both national and regional level. An extraordinary number of bodies is involved; MAFF has an overall strategic responsibility. The Environment Agency has an increasing and, in my view, correct involvement. However, many other agencies, particularly at local level, are also involved. I refer to local drainage committees, local coastal committees and others. Progress is being made. The high targets which were announced by the Government last November will help. However, there is a generally held view that the Government do not attach sufficient seriousness to this matter or accord it a high enough priority.
There clearly must be an overriding national strategy. However, it is absolutely clear that the right solution in every case cannot be determined nationally. There clearly must be local democratic input, but somebody, somewhere, must strike the
1172
balance. What the affected residents want may not be what is in the general community interest. The Agriculture Select Committee identified the region as the level at which a crucial co-ordination and strategic overview should take place. The Government have side-stepped that. It seems fairly obvious to us on these Benches that the regional level is probably the right level for coastal work, because it provides a sufficiently large span of the coast for the assessment of a project's effects further along the coast. There certainly will be effects.
We on these Benches are strongly in favour of the development of elected regional government within England, and it seems to us that, in the medium term, elected regional government is the answer to the strategic overview and the carrying out of major projects on the coast. In the mean time, people will no doubt muddle through.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for introducing the debate. With other noble Lords, I look forward to hearing further contributions.
6 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I. too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for the opportunity to discuss this important subject, which is clearly causing much anxiety and concern. I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, on his expert contribution. I am particularly pleased that he was here today in order to quell any doubts about the reality of climate change, even if the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, does not believe in it.
I should declare an interest, as chairman of English Nature. We take part in advising on coastal management where important geological sites and processes, and wildlife habitats are involved. Nevertheless, I shall not comment on the specific cases raised by noble Lords, particularly that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, since, as he said, the case of Birling Gap is about to be the subject of a planning inquiry. I simply hope that the House will detect from my remarks today, first, that I disagree with him, and, secondly, that his case does not stand up.
I should like to come at the issue from a slightly different direction. The coast makes the UK very special. We are an island and we have nationally and internationally important geological features on our coasts, some of a type that make them a world heritage site. We are also renowned for our landscape coasts: wild Cornwall; the Welsh coast; Lancashire, which has been mentioned, where Morecambe Bay is a delightful spot; and of course the Yorkshire coast.
We are also famous for the wildlife interests of our coast: the seabird cliffs; the sand dunes and the many plants and invertebrates that depend on them; the softer coasts such as Norfolk and Suffolk, which are particularly important for migratory waders, ducks and geese; and the inter-tidal and coastal grazing marshes. If we consider what the UK is important for in biodiversity terms, we see that we are a sort of

1173
"ginormous" pit-stop for migratory species flying both north and south, a sort of refuelling centre for alien species, without which they would not survive.
Therefore, it is not surprising that it is a mark of its importance for geology, landscape and wildlife that much of the remaining undeveloped coast of the UK is designated as nationally or internationally important for those interests. In many cases that depends on habitats, species and features of geological interest being allowed to move and respond naturally to the powers of the sea. Cliffs need to be allowed to erode, because that creates a variety of habitats upon which important species depend. Indeed, erosion is a fundamental principle for maintaining important geological exposures or the geomorphological processes on which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not too keen. To reduce this to the point of absurdity, as an example, the White Cliffs of Dover would be the "green cliffs of Dover" if they were not in a process of erosion.
There is huge pressure on the coast, for a variety of reasons: leisure development; the expansion of our ports; shipping; dredging and aggregates-winning; and housing and other built development. All of those matters are increasing the pressure on habitats and geological sites.
For centuries the major pressure on our coast has been the sea itself. We have shown considerable ingenuity in the way in which we have constructed coastal defences, defended crumbling cliffs and, indeed, often reclaimed coastal processes, and particularly salt marshes, for agriculture and development. The Wash is a prime example. I live virtually in the middle of England, at the point the Wash would reach if it were still a natural estuarine system. Bedford-by-the-Sea may yet be a reality, because we are living on borrowed land in many cases, and the sea is still inexorably there.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that there are two additional factors—the sinking of the east coast and the rise in sea level as a result of indubitable climate change, and its impact on increased storminess and flooding. In the face of all that, we must reassess the processes that we have adopted in the past of built and hard defences. I have come to the conclusion that they are not necessarily the answer. There are four reasons why we need to reassess them.
First, we cannot simply continue to build ever-bigger and higher defences to stop the sea. That way madness lies, both economically and visually.
Secondly, we could, of course, try building our defences slightly further back, but there are problems with that as well. Some of our most sensitive wildlife sites, because of a process of coastal squeeze, where the sea comes into a new defended spot, means that we lose both inter-tidal habitats, including salt marsh, and coastal grazing. That means that the very important stop-off point that we provide for migratory species would simply disappear.
1174
The third reason why we must reassess the hard defences is that we cannot be like Canute. We kid ourselves if we think that by building hard defences, we tame the sea. The sea does not go away; the tide just comes in somewhere else. Hard defences often interfere with powerful natural processes which are in themselves useful; for example, if we build defences, the natural charging of beaches is interfered with and beaches disappear, causing erosion problems elsewhere on the coast. Erosion does not stop; it simply tends to move around.
The final reason why we must reassess the process of building hard coastal defences is economic. They are expensive and in many cases are not the most cost-effective option for the protection of property. It may be more cost-effective for us as a nation to let non-distinctive built structures and general farmland simply go. It is wrong to spend more and more on short-term hard defences, which will eventually again be defeated by the sea, rather than investing now in more sustainable long-term solutions.
What are the ways forward? We have already heard about shoreline management plans, which are indeed the first step. They consider land use, the human and built environment and the natural environment, and they lead to coastal defence strategies that are particular to each length of coastline. They raise a number of options, the first of which is the much reviled "do nothing" option. It is the appropriate option where physical processes and economics, or the importance of geological or conservation interests, make that the sensible way forward. But in those circumstances, where there may be considerable human inconvenience, there is a need for careful exposition of the processes and the economic arguments that led to the decision. It raises a very difficult question for a government in terms of how we handle the question of incentives or compensation. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will want to address that matter. I do not believe that we are in a position to compensate from the public purse every property owner in all circumstances. So the "do nothing" option is one that we cannot avoid in many places.
The second option that can be identified by these coastal defence strategies is to develop a series of soft defences; to go back to a much more natural process of defending our coasts; to use coastal habitats and natural features in a more sustainable way; to harness dunes, shingle ridges, salt marshes and mud flats which act as natural energy-absorbing barriers; to allow cliffs to erode and provide fresh material to form new habitats, which in turn protect low-lying land.
This is often a much cheaper solution; for example, the Environment Agency estimates that on average coast defences which have an 80-metre width of salt marsh fronting an eroding coast cost about £400 per metre; without that 80- metre width of salt marsh, without that soft, natural defence, the estimate rockets up to £5,000 per metre.
A third option that the coastal defence strategies have identified is the technique of managed retreat; the managed realignment of defences. Examples of this are

1175
already being tried on our east coast to ascertain whether that is a viable proposition for the future. Basically, managed retreat tries to tackle the problem of coastal squeeze and habitat loss as the sea comes inland against hard defences. We want to try to avoid that by recreating a series of the same coastal habitats further inland so that there is a natural succession of coastal habitats, often up river valleys.
This would involve a fairly large scale re-engineering of the face of parts of our coast, but it is probably one of the most cost-effective ways forward. It would involve, for example, conversion of agricultural land to coastal habitats. Indeed, MAFF is already involved in a payments scheme to enable that to happen. I do not think that it is entirely out of order in the present agricultural setting to believe that managing coastal habitats for coastal defence may be as valid an alternative activity for farmers and for land use as the current uneconomic and environmentally damaging use of some of that coastal land, which has often been only recently reclaimed from the sea. So let us see farmers managing realignment as part of their income stream in diversified rural holdings.
Another option that we need to tackle as part of the coastal defence strategy is to get our estuaries into more natural shape; to foster the occurrence within our estuaries of large areas of gradually rising ground, where tides can expand and contract safely and act as a natural pressure valve which will allow built structures elsewhere on the coast to be safe.
Last but not least—and a point which has already been mentioned—we should learn the lessons of the past. We should not be building on eroding coasts; we need greater integration between shoreline management plans and land-use planning. English Nature, of which I am the chairman, is delighted to be involved with MAFF, the Environment Agency, landowners, conservation groups and local authorities in a project (which is funded by the European Union through LIFE programme money) called "Living with the Sea". It is exploring on a pilot basis the fundamental rethinking necessary with regard to what lands can be protected, and how they can best be protected in sustainable and natural ways by working not against dynamic coastal processes, but with them.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for initiating the debate. I was interested to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. There seems to be an enormous claim among those in the Chamber at the moment to have gone to Cambridge. I did.
I am afraid that I shall be parochial. This is not because I have not listened carefully to what the previous speaker said—I agree absolutely with the noble Baroness, particularly in regard to the north Norfolk coast—but because I wish to bring two particular problems to the attention of the House. They are typical of a wider problem that is found everywhere else.
1176
I live about six miles south of the north Norfolk coast, 92 feet above sea level—so I have a year or two yet to go—and the highest point in Norfolk, which is some 350 feet, is between me and the coast. It is said that if you stand there and face east, no land is higher than you until you get to the Urals. That gives one some idea of how flat that part of Europe is all the way across the Baltic states.
I saw a nice photograph of a Minister visiting North Norfolk. I am sorry that that Minister is not responding to the debate today, but I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture is responding instead. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would have replied, but two replies running would have been too much for him.
It depends on what one means by "long-term". I was a member of the coastal defence commit tee of the Erpingham RDC. This was before the last local government reorganisation, or the one before that, or whatever. The problems are exactly the same now. We had a small amount of sea defence work to carry out; we then had a couple of urban district councils in our middle; and when we got clear of the urban district councils, my goodness, it was done by the Ministry of Agriculture. Until the local government reorganisation and the coming into being of the North Norfolk District Council the co-ordination along that part of the north Norfolk coast was haphazard.
But even now the new North Norfolk District Council runs only from Weybourne to Bacton. From Weybourne to Wells in a westerly direction it is the Ministry of Agriculture again that is responsible.
Since 1996, a points system has been worked out for the allocation of money for sea defences. This points system militates very strongly against small rural coastal communities. To get points under the system, one either has to have a large urban area or, even better, a disaster. Then one can get some money. I am afraid that we are among the four most disadvantaged areas, which I understand are West Dorset, Holderness, Waveney and north Norfolk.
There are two specific areas of the North Norfolk District Council coastline to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. They are very important and they illustrate what the noble Baroness said. The first area is Happisburgh. I was warned that if used the words "Happisburgh" and "flooding" it would halve the value of properties in the village. That is absolutely true. The values of properties there have plummeted because of the so-called danger. I should like to make it absolutely clear to anyone who thinks that that is true that the village is all right. We are not talking about the village but a few outlying farmsteads—we do not want them flooded either— and farmland.
The important thing about Happisburgh is that it is the back door to the Broads. It is possible that if there was a flood at Happisburgh the whole of the Broads area—the whole of the national park—could become saline overnight. It has happened before; it will happen again. For that reason alone the sea defences there must be looked into. I am not saying that we want hard sea defences.

1177
As has been referred to, work has been carried out further along the coast at Bacton using large pieces of Sweden, which were brought over in boats and dropped in the water. I think it has worked quite well: it has improved the lobster and crab fishing and it seems to defend the coast. That is the kind of thing we should be looking at, not at hard defences. Incidentally, that was the result of co-operation between the Environment Agency and the district council, which work very well together.
To give the House some idea of the situation at Happisburgh, one farmer in the past eight years has lost 40 metres of land over a length of more than 700 metres. If I work that out correctly, that is 2.48 hectares over that period of time.
When you are playing "brownie points" you are not allowed to take 100 per cent of the value of land because you have to take into account the CAP money that the farmer receives, so when a cost-benefit analysis is carried out a figure of only 40 per cent of the value is allowed.
A little saline flooding is bad because it takes years to recover, but if land has eroded it has gone altogether. I say to the Minister that discussions are urgently needed in that particular area because so many people are affected. It is not just about houses; it is about the back door of the Broads.
When I was a member of the Cley district council in the old days the problems were the same. They have not changed at all. We still have a lot of bulldozers pushing up the bank every time the tide pushes it down. However, we have a slight advantage there, which I shall controversially call the birds and the bees or people. I support the birds and the bees because Cley is one of the Natura 2000 sites. In other words, it is one of the sites which this country has selected under the EC biodiversity directive, which unfortunately I have not brought to this House. I believe that we shall be discussing the Select Committee's report on that directive in about three weeks' time. I hope that by then the Ministry of Agriculture will have answered our questions and will have responded to them. It has not yet done so because, I am told, it is busy doing something to do with the countryside.
The suggestion at Cley is that the sea should take its natural course. As long as the salt marshes remain roughly the same size, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, the salt marshes, marshes and wading bird areas should be taken further up the river. That is an obligation under the Natura 2000. We should then let the sea take its course. I do not know exactly what is happening at the moment. Perhaps the Government will clarify the position because I am not at all clear. I understand that the concept has been agreed by the local authorities. I believe that the matter is now with the Government and I would love an answer to that question.
There are two general questions I should particularly like to ask. The first is the question asked 25 or 35 years ago by the Royal Commission. Is it not time that we had one authority to look after our sea
1178
defences? At the moment it is not just a problem of cutting up the cake; it is a question of how big a cake there is anyway.
Secondly, the Environment Agency, which is, after all, a quango, is not responsible to anyone as far as I can see. I think the Environment Agency is doing a very, very good job in our part of the world and I make no criticism, but is it accountable to anyone and, if so, to whom?
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. Like him, I share a love of the Suffolk coast and often visit Southwold which the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, would describe as protected, whereas the area to the north and to the south, at Dunwich, has already fallen into the sea. It is a part of the world of which I am extremely fond.
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for a superb maiden speech. It showed an extremely sound knowledge of the topic and the width and breadth of knowledge that he will bring to this House. We welcome him most warmly and look forward to his participation in debates, not only on this sort of topic but many others.
There is something especially horrible about watching someone's home disappear over a cliff. It challenges all the basic certainties of life. It is even more devastating when one imagines lying in bed listening to the storm and feeling the ground shake as 50 foot waves pound the cliffs in their perennial attempts to get at you-double glazing, central heating, fitted carpets and all. No one is secure.
Hitherto the problem has affected small numbers of people and relatively few coastal areas. The honourable Member, Elliot Morley, who is with us at the moment, in another place on 24th June 1998 said:
"Responsibility for the protection of the land against erosion or encroachment by the sea rests with the maritime district councils".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/98; col. 1147.]
In the same debate the MP for Torbay, referred to earlier by other noble Lords, pointed out, at col. 1144:
"MAFF has policy responsibility in England for flood defence and coastal protection … to reduce the risk to people and to the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion".
Effectively, as a result, government have been distanced from the responsibility. Nobody, as other noble Lords have pointed out, has overall responsibility.
Now that the climate change has been officially recognised to the extent of having its own levy, this distance will be even more difficult to maintain. Areas subject to erosion are losing bigger chunks of land, for example, Beachy Head. The number of areas affected is growing as sea levels rise by between four and six millimetres a year and the autumn storms increase in frequency and ferocity. The knock-on effects of the actions of any one local authority is increasingly affecting neighbouring districts.

1179
The evidence is well documented in Hansard. I need only cite the debate on 24th February 1999 in another place when Alan Hurst MP stated that,
"the barriers on the lower Thames are being closed much more often nowadays".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/99; col. 328.]
Derek Wyatt spoke of the Thames Barrier and of its effect on Sheerness. Claire Curtis-Thomas pointed out that a new development in Southport had exacerbated problems in Hightown.
The time is coming when government will have to play a bigger part in either managing the effects of climate change or in adjudicating between district councils.
So far I have spoken in terms mainly of the impact of coastal erosion on buildings, but it has much wider effects. I am sure ramblers could specify how many miles of coastal paths are lost each year and testify to the difficulties of finding alternative routes. Farmers lose grazing and arable land, and sometimes animals, every year. Fishermen lose spawning areas as underwater currents are changed when hundreds of tons of rock and clay redesign the contours of the seabed. Seaside towns lose stretches of sandy beach and have to pay for wiring off dangerous areas or erecting warning signs. Wildlife is caught unawares and is crushed or drowned in sizeable numbers. In fact, I cannot find a single beneficial result of coastal erosion although I acknowledge that some of our soft cliff faces provide, according to English Nature, homes for at least 11 rare species of bees and wasps.
As climate change worsens, our problems too are greater and we shall have to find new ways of tackling them and adopt new attitudes to managing their impact on our society.
The 1998 Commons Agriculture Select Committee report was well received in that place and the debate contains much helpful data. At the moment in its policy role the ministry encourages local authorities to develop shoreline management plans and provides grants for coastal protection schemes. These grants are awarded under the Coast Protection Act 1949 for between 35 per cent and 75 per cent of the total scheme cost. In comparison, awards for flood defence work carried out by the Department of the Environment under the Water Resources Act 1991 vary according to the region and location of the rivers from 15 per cent to 65 per cent, and for tidal waters from 35 per cent to 85 per cent.
If the flood defence work is done under the Land Drainage Act 1991 by district councils or the internal drainage boards, the grants are cut to a flat rate of 25 per cent for rivers and 45 per cent for tidal waters. As circumstances have changed quite dramatically over the last three to four years, will the Minister indicate whether the Government are looking at these rates with a view to standardising and improving them?
I have been surprised—I suspect like others—at the cost of some defence works. In the debate of 24th June 1998 the Member for Torbay quoted the example of a cliff fall that had destroyed an access path to Redgate beach and rendered sections of the cliff unstable. The
1180
cost of repairs was estimated at £350,000, compared with a standard spending assessment for coastal protection in Torbay of £14,000. More recently, a MAFF news release of 26th May announced a grant of £900,000 towards a total cost of £2.6 million for the reconstruction of existing tidal defences over a distance of about 2.5 kilometres or just over a quarter of a mile on the River Severn.
The granting of these sums is done according to a scoring system, mentioned by Mr Elliot Morley in the other place on 24th June 1998. The priorities of this scoring system works thus, in descending order:
"flood warning; urban coastal and tidal defences; … urban flood defences and environmental assets of international importance; rural coastal and tidal defences, existing rural flood defences and drainage works, and environmental assets or national significance; and new rural flood defence works, and environmental assets of local significance.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/98; col. 1149.]
In the same debate the Secretary of State stated that these priorities would apply in exactly the same way for rural and urban areas. Nonetheless, urban areas are clearly higher up the priority list. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us how much money and what average percentage total funding has been granted under each of those five headings in each of the last three years.
As we move forward into this era of rising tides, more severe storms, higher rainfall during autumn and winter and longer periods of drought in spring and summer, we have to anticipate that coastal erosion, estuary damage and river flooding will become more frequent and more extreme. Certain of the consequences that are bandied about are truly terrifying. A report in the Observer on 6th February claimed that government scientists and experts in the nuclear industry fear that former nuclear power plants will be threatened by flooding from the sea. 1t pointed out that all but one of Britain's nuclear plants, is on the coast, many intentionally sited in low-lying areas to give easy access to sea water. Indeed in my own area we have one. If that report turns out to be true I hope that the Government will absolve the hapless maritime councils where these stations are situated from responsibility for protection of the land against erosion or encroachment by the sea. The cost of carrying out the work to the required standards would, I fear, be well beyond the means of any district council, even given the current maximum grant of 75 per cent.
Loss of land to the sea will increase. In the South East it will be made worse by the natural tilt, to which reference has been made. Before 1949 individual landowners were responsible for coastal defence and decided for themselves the balance between the cost: of maintaining the line and losing chunks of land. After that the landowner lost the power of choice and sim ply had to accept the loss of the land. Time has marched on and changing circumstances have led to a policy of "managed retreat" or "managed realignment". Both mean that the sea is allowed to claim the dunes, the rock wall or the cliff face in one area in order to avoid coastal erosion elsewhere. Both are used to protect life and property but increasingly also to recreate particular habitats such as salt marshes.

1181
Only in very special circumstances is compensation paid for the loss of the land, for loss of buildings standing on the land, or for consequential loss of profit. I remember the story of the Kent farmer who found himself faced with the uncompensated loss of some 100 acres of his 400 acre farm. At a very conservative £2,500 per acre that works out at a loss of a quarter of a million pounds. At the time I wondered what would have happened if the land in question had belonged to a developer with outline permission for, say, 200 retirement homes. It did not. But as this century matures, the possibility of enormous consequential loss, especially in the South East, with its plans for 1.1 million extra homes, will continue to grow.
The Select Committee report, already referred to, commented both on current levels of funding and the way in which that funding is delivered and recommended that the funding be reconsidered. Like other noble Lords I would support that. It also stated that compensation was an issue. In the words of the committee chairman, Peter Luff MP:
"If individuals are required to make sacrifices for some wider social benefit, they should be compensated.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/99: col. 327.]
I endorse that sentiment. At the moment it is mainly farmland that is affected. But eventually, I suspect, other interests and maybe whole communities, like those on the Isle of Sheppey, Canvey Island, and along the Severn estuary, will be involved. I do not think that it is fair to deny compensation now to farmers and to a few individuals only to have to pay later to different groups of people in greater numbers. I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's reply.
This has been a very interesting debate. It has covered a wide range of examples from the personal knowledge of people who have had to deal with the problems. I have spoken briefly regarding farmers and those living in affected areas. It is clear that a situation in which several authorities are responsible for various matters is not the best way to preserve our countryside. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for making the debate possible and look forward to the Minister's response.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should like to echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. It has been a fascinating debate and we should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, on initiating it and, indeed, on the speech in which he did so. Equally, I think we ought to congratulate him on his tenacity in ensuring that we did eventually debate this important subject. I have been noting his interest for many weeks and months. It is right that we have finally managed to have a debate on this. I hope that he has been pleased with what I think were very high quality contributions.
Like everyone else, I think that I should point out how the whole House, I felt, was particularly impressed by the erudite and wise maiden speech of my
1182
noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton. We recognise in him someone who has a contribution to make on this important topic that we will all wish to take very seriously. Climate change is a subject to which, in various guises, I am certain the House will return, and all of us will look forward to having the value of the noble Lord's expertise and experience in our future deliberations on this matter.
The noble Lord said that he had been told that it was not appropriate to make a controversial maiden speech, which of course was absolutely right; and he assumed that the existence of climate change would not be controversial in your Lordships' House. We managed to have some controversy in the course of the debate and I suspect that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, would not have passed the "maiden speech" test. Luckily, it did not have to. However, it did illustrate that there is controversy in this field still and that there is also high emotion. Flooding and coastal erosion, with the damage to, or loss of, land and property, is a highly emotive subject. It affects people's lives. Damage and distress are sustained by those affected, and are often very severe—and not only in economic terms.
This week we saw the effects of flooding in Todmorden and elsewhere in northern England. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to express the Government's sympathy to all those who have been affected by those floods. Although natural events such as flooding and coastal erosion can never be entirely prevented, it is obviously right that those public authorities which are empowered to take measures to alleviate the risk take action where it is reasonable and right to do so.
It has been pointed out that there are a range of public authorities involved in this issue. Lead strategy and policy-making for flood and coastal defences rest with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but of course other national bodies under local authorities must rightly be involved in these considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke of the importance of the regional dimension. I suspect that it will be impossible ever to give a single authority total powers in this area. The challenge is to maintain both leadership and the appropriate co-ordination that is warranted by individual circumstances.
Perhaps I may now retreat from the local question and speak about climate change. That has underpinned many of the contributions in today's debate. The majority opinion expressed in this debate in your Lordships' House has suggested that climate change is with us and that we have to take action to recognise that and do what needs to be done and what can be done to combat the causes of climate change. The lead department in this area is, of course, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the House will know of the efforts being made. Measures are being undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The current campaign asks citizens, "Are you doing your Bit?". I was grateful for the support for those campaigns demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in his remarks when opening the debate.

1183
We need to take action to adapt to the effects of climate change that are taking place and will be with us for some decades. So far as concerns flood and coastal defences, these adaptation measures are within the policy area of the ministry. We work closely with the operating authorities—the Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and local authorities—which are responsible for the planning, design, construction, maintenance and operation of flood and coastal defences. In particular, they need to ensure that, in considering defence options, they take account of sea level rise. Research is under way to investigate other impacts such as increased storminess and changing rainfall patterns. We shall be offering appropriate guidance as our understanding of these impacts develops.
Since 1899—I apologise, I was thinking of the 12th century which was mentioned in the original contribution—since 1989 MAFF has issued allowances to the operating authorities to take into account when designing schemes and considering defence options. The allowances are relevant for defences with a design life of up to 40 years. Beyond that, defences should be flexible so that they can be constructed in a way that will allow for future modification. Allowances are based on an expected rise of 18 centimetres over 40 years in global sea level, which represents an average of 4.5 millimetres a year, which is close to the mid range of predictions that have been expressed in the House today.
The allowances also take account of another issue that has been raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves; that is, long-term geological tilt, resulting from the last ice age. That means that the South and East of the country are sinking while the North and West are rising. The overall figure is therefore modified for different areas of the country to produce net allowances of between 4 millimetres and 6 millimetres a year according to region. Those allowances are kept under review in the light of emerging scientific evidence. If extreme events follow the predicted pattern of global sea level rise, indications are that the allowances should be adequate at least to the middle of the 21st century.
In that context, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked specifically about the Thames Barrier. This is a robust and flexible installation with a design based on rates of sea level rise predicted in the 1970s which were higher than those currently anticipated. It provides London with a high level of protection from tidal flooding and, with normal care and maintenance, should continue to do so until at least the latter part of this century. Even then, although the barrier may need to be closed more frequently, it will continue to fulfil its primary function of protecting London.
Overall, the Government's policy is to reduce the risk to people and the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion by encouraging the provision of technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defence measures. There are three key strands which support that policy aim.
1184
First, we encourage the provision of adequate and cost-effective flood warning systems. We do this by grant-aiding flood warning systems and by supporting underpinning measures. In the past year the Environment Agency has produced indicative flood risk maps which show the areas most at risk of flooding. These are important tools in deciding where flood warning systems are needed. But whatever warning systems are in place, individuals must take action to protect themselves. They need to heed warnings. Noble Lords will perhaps remember the message in the Environment Agency's flood awareness campaign last winter, that, "Floods don't just happen to other people".
People also need to ensure that they have adequate insurance against flooding. However much sympathy the Government have for those who are affected, we cannot act as "insurer of last resort" for those who simply decide not to take out cover. But what the Government can do is to encourage the provision of flood and coastal defence measures, which forms the second strand of the policy. We do this by providing grant aid to schemes that are technically, environmentally and economically sound and which achieve an appropriate priority score based on urgency, ministerial priorities and benefit/cost ratios. Schemes must be sustainable; we cannot commit future generations to maintaining defences in areas where it is not sustainable. Such defence measures need to be based on an understanding of natural processes and, as far as possible, they need to work with those processes. I believe that was the point to which my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone referred. The key issue here is sustainability.
As part of the strategic approach to flood and coastal defence problems, the ministry has promoted the setting up of coastal defence groups which provide a forum for discussion and stimulus for co-operation to help to ensure that coastal processes within particular stretches of coast are taken into account. To assist those groups in the strategic management of discrete stretches of coast, the ministry has encouraged the preparation of shoreline management plans, which were referred to by my noble friend Lady Young and by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who, I believe, recognised the value of the contribution those plans can make.
The aim of the plans is to provide a basis for sustainable coastal defence policies and to set objectives for the future management of the coastline, taking into account natural coastal processes, coastal defence needs, environmental considerations, planning issues and current and future land use. This approach enables evolving knowledge of physical processes, environmental issues and land use to be drawn into the planning process. Plans should be the subject of wide consultation with all bodies with an interest in the coastline and should take due account of other coastal initiatives.
Coastal groups also play an important role in integrating shoreline management plans (SMPs) with the work of local planning authorities with a view to avoiding problems in the future by discouraging

1185
inappropriate development. Shoreline management plans are intended to be living documents and will need to be reviewed at regular intervals. Indeed, a timetable for review should be included in the plans. The ministry intends to issue revised guidance for the next generation of plans later this year.
It is for operating authorities to assess what measures are needed to reduce flooding and coastal erosion in their areas and to come forward with relevant plans that are cost-effective and sound in engineering and environmental terms.
One of the issues that has come out of the debate is the need for flexibility in this area. It is important that we recognise that, given the tremendous diversity of coastal formations in this country, there can be no uniform approach to coastal defence. In particular, we have to be ready to use some of the more novel approaches that have been recommended—my noble friend Lord Hunt referred to them—to look at the possibilities for using beaches and to recognise that coastlines do recede or advance with changes in current, wind and tide. It is therefore unrealistic to expect to maintain every inch of coastline as it is now. Instead, authorities need to look at a range of options and consider the impacts of defending a particular stretch of coast so as to avoid, wherever possible, burdening future generations with the maintenance of unsustainable defences.
As the bulk of expenditure on flood and coastal defences is provided by taxpayers, many of whom may personally derive little direct benefit from the money spent on their behalf, both the ministry and the operating authorities have a responsibility to ensure that value for money is obtained when funding schemes. Economic analysis is an effective tool for comparing the impacts of flooding and erosion and the cost of reducing that risk in order to arrive at an optimum solution. It is not applied in isolation, however, and authorities are required to consider other matters, including environmental impact and sustainability, when deciding where investment in defences should be directed and determining the optimum solution.
The ministry provides grant aid for capital flood defence and coast protection schemes which are technically sound, economically worth while, and environmentally acceptable. Funding takes the form of direct grants at varying rates and, for local authorities, the ministry also provides approvals to enable them to borrow the balance of the cost of approved schemes net of grant. This was one of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
In the face of ever-increasing demands for MAFF funding, priority scoring arrangements were introduced in June 1997 on a pilot basis, with a view to optimising the allocation of available funds. The priority scores take account of ministerial priorities, urgency, and benefit/cost ratio. For the first time, sites of environmental interest were specifically identified within ministerial priorities, which also recognise the emphasis placed on the protection of life, and hence on those parts of the country where large numbers of
1186
people live and work. It is important that we recognise that the protection of people and property, infrastructure and the environment, and not simply rural coastal schemes, do receive high priority.
Whatever decisions are taken about the future level of MAFF funding for flood and coastal defence, it would be unrealistic to assume that it would be sufficient to meet all demand. That is why I would say, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, that we need a means of setting schemes in order of priority; and that was the purpose of this scheme. It may not be perfect; that is why we regard it as a pilot and indicate that we are prepared to consider revisions. A review of the score arrangements will be initiated later this year.
While I am on this point, the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, asked about the state of play on the protection of Cley. My understanding is that the project rests with the Environment Agency, which, I believe, is awaiting the agreement of the local planning authority. My honourable friend in another place heard the noble Lord's contribution on this particular point, and I am sure that he will have noted it.
There has been much debate tonight about managed retreat or managed realignment of defences. It is obviously a contentious issue. Ministers have made it clear that any proposals for managed retreat must be specific and must be considered locally. There is no intention to abandon large tracts of land to the sea. Realigning defences further inland, or indeed allowing natural erosion to continue, are simply two of the many options that local flood or coastal defence authorities should review when formulating coastal defence proposals, particularly in rural areas. They will clearly not be appropriate in many circumstances but, as my noble friend Lady Young pointed out, they may well be appropriate in some, and they should at least be considered.
That also raises the question of compensation. In general, no compensation is payable to those affected by flooding or erosion, including cases where it is decided not to defend a particular area or to undertake managed realignment. This approach has been adopted by successive governments and is justified by current legislation which provides operating authorities with permissive powers to undertake flood and coastal defence works. Save for the specific requirements of the habitats directive, there is no general obligation to build or maintain defences either at all or to a particular standard. Consonant with this approach, the legislation also makes no provision for compensation from public funds to persons whose property or land are affected by erosion or flooding.
Payment is possible, however, where quantifiable beneficial use arises. Thus land may be acquired for the construction or maintenance of defences and compensation paid for damage arising expressly from such operations.
Also, in some circumstances where land seaward of justifiable new defences can be shown to contribute to effective defence, whether locally or remotely, landowners may be eligible for payment for depreciation or for loss of land.

1187
Finally, if a defence is realigned landward, land currently in agricultural use may be considered for payments under agri-environmental schemes, if a long-term return to inter-tidal habitats fulfils the relevant objectives. I was interested to hear what my noble friend had to say on the possibilities in agricultural terms.
The Government recognise the importance of sustaining flood defences and coast protection. The outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review meant, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out, that an additional £23 million was provided from ministry funding over the past, this and next year, bringing the total available in those three years to £230 million. Funding for future years will obviously be considered in this year's spending review.
I acknowledge the important point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt about the significance of maintaining efforts in R&D in this area. The ministry does co-ordinate work closely with the research councils and the Environment Agency in establishing the flood and coastal defence research programme. We also liaise closely on these matters with other states bordering the North Sea, including the Netherlands, which has received such favourable mention. We have also ensured that results of research are disseminated and fully integrated into revised guidance and policy development.
The third strand of government policy is to discourage inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. I stress the word "inappropriate". We have to ask the question: does it make sense to place this particular development in this particular area? The key test is sustainability. Even if defence measures are put in place today to protect a new development, there will be continuing costs in maintaining them and ensuring that they do their job in decades to come against the challenges of rising sea levels.
In 1992, guidance was issued to local planning authorities to steer development away from areas at risk of flooding. In April, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued a consultation draft of strengthened guidance which will make flood risk a material consideration for local planning authorities. I hope that will give some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, about the recognition of the need for joined-up policy in this area.
There is also guidance on the need for developers to make contributions to defences which are necessary as a result of the development, not just now, but for their whole life.
The Environment Agency remains a consultee on development proposals. The agency's flood risk maps will be important tools for local planning authorities in considering development plans and planning applications.
I have set out the Government's policy aim and objectives for flood and coastal defence. However good these are, we need to ensure that they are delivered on the ground by some 650 operating
1188
authorities. In April, therefore, the Government put in place a series of high-level targets to help to achieve a more certain delivery. Operating authorities are required to produce policy statements setting out how they will achieve the Government's aim and objectives. There are targets in relation to the identification and inspection of defences; the recording of results and assessing flood and erosion risks; flood warning and emergency exercises; and development control in areas at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. We shall be reporting on the achievement of those targets.
The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, may wish to note that successful delivery of the policy aim depends on an effective partnership with local operating authorities, including the Environment Agency, which is accountable to government. In the particular case of flood defence, that responsibility rests with MAFF.
This has been a fascinating debate. Not only have we learnt about geomorphology; I have also learnt about a piece of Marvell poetry that I had not heard before. The poem that I have always known begins,
"Had we but world enough, and time".
It may be significant and sensible to remind ourselves that in this area we should all hear,
"Time's wingéd chariot hurrying near",
and make sure that the policies are appropriate to the needs.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords., I have a couple of minutes in which to express my thanks to all who have taken part in the debate. I must admit that when I tabled this Motion I was not sure of how much interest it would prove to your Lordships. I need not have worried, need I? We have heard some fascinating contributions. I think particularly of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is a famous meteorologist. I hope that the noble Lord will not have mistaken or misunderstood the very warm welcome that we all gave to his words. We long to hear from the noble Lord often again.
There was an important contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who is a geographer. There was also an interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Harris, who spoke with characteristic fire, but in directions which took me by surprise. It was not until I realised that my noble friend came from the Birling Gap fraternity that I understood. I may have got the adjectives wrong, but I thought that one point he was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, as "picturesque"—but perhaps that was the gap lo which he was referring at that point.
I shall, of course, read the Hansard account of the debate. I was glad to hear what the noble Baroness said about the Thames Barrier. It was much more comforting than other information that has reached me.
On the question of insurance, I do not think that the noble Baroness answered the proposition that I put. I did not expect her to do so; however, perhaps she could take the trouble to examine my suggestion. It was not

1189
that the Government should give out money to people who had not taken the trouble to insure themselves, but that the Government might help to support an insurance scheme in circumstances where the insurers themselves withdrew cover. That is the kind of supportive activity that the Government might be able to undertake.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her authoritative remarks. She may have misunderstood me in thinking that I was in favour of hard defences—I am not. All I was saying was that we should not choose managed retreat merely because it is the cheapest option—and I suspect that there may be an element of that in some of the judgments that are taking place. I say no more. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Race Relations (Religious Discrimination) Bill [H.L.]
7.3 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The issue that I raise is one that should have been resolved during the last century. It must certainly be resolved in this one. It is the issue of religious discrimination. It is unacceptable that, whereas the principle of religious toleration has been legally established in the British Isles for the past 150 years, religious discrimination is nevertheless still legally practised and tolerated today. That is why I place this Private Member's Bill before the House. The Bill seeks to extend the ambit of the Race Relations Act 1976 to include discrimination on grounds of religion.
All that needs to be done to include religion as an additional ground for proving discrimination by way of differential treatment is to insert the words "or religious" after the word "racial" whenever it appears in the wording of the Act, and to insert the words "or religion" after the word "race" wherever it appears in the Act. I appreciate that the wording of the Bill in its present form is not complete, but it can be perfected. In the meantime, the principle and intent are simple and clear.
I begin by pointing out that it is misleading to assert that the provisions in the Race Relations Act 1976 regarding indirect discrimination can be successfully invoked in their present form when dealing with cases of religious discrimination. They cannot. They can be invoked only in cases where there is also an element of racial discrimination. Even then, it is necessary to prove that the discrimination was intentional before compensation can be awarded. If my proposal is accepted, this lacuna in the law will cease to exist and those who are discriminated against on grounds of their religion will then be able to seek the justice which at present, I regret to say, they are denied in the courts of this land.
1190
I hasten to emphasise that my Bill is concerned with religious discrimination, not philosophical or ideological discrimination. I am simply concerned with establishing some measure of protection for people who are discriminated against because they worship God, by whatever name they know God. At present, such discrimination is not against the law.
The Human Rights Act 1998, which is due to come into force in October 2000, inter alia, guarantees the right to practise one's religion, whether alone or in a group, and to educate one's children in accordance with one's religion. It is nonsense to assert, as some do, that the Act goes only so far as to acknowledge such rights, and no further. A right that can be ignored and trampled over with impunity and without liability, where loss is caused as a result, has not been secured; and until it is secured, it is no right at all—it is a mockery of justice.
When I addressed the House previously on this issue in autumn last year, some noble Lords were quick to point out the possible difficulties in defining "religion", "worship" and "God". They raised philosophical issues as regards the status and rights of those who have a belief system but who do not believe in God. They also raised the spectre of obscure and possibly evil cults seeking to shelter behind the law that I propose: for example, those who practise Satanism. These issues have already been considered by learned judges in court, especially but not exclusively in the context of the law governing charities.
For example, in the case of Regina v Registrar General, ex parte Segerdal and Another, Lord Denning, may he rest in peace, concluded in 1970 that "a place of meeting for religious worship" denotes somewhere that is used principally as a place where people come together as a congregation or assembly to offer reverence to God. He stated that,
"It need not be the God which the Christians worship. It may be another God or an unknown God, but it must be reverence to a deity … Turning to the creed of the Church of Scientology. I must say that it seems to me to be more of a philosophy of the existence of a man or life, rather than a religion. Religious worship means reverence or veneration of God or of a Supreme Being. I do not find any such reverence or veneration in the creed to this church".
These basic concepts and principles were then considered in greater detail in 1978 in the case In re South Place Ethical Society Barralet and Others v Attorney-General and Others. In his judgment, Mr Justice Dillon stated, inter alia:
"In a free country … it is natural that the court should desire not to discriminate between beliefs deeply and sincerely held, whether they are beliefs in a god or in the excellence of man or in ethical principles or in Platonism or some other scheme of philosophy. But I do not see that that warrants extending the meaning of the word 'religion' so as to embrace all other beliefs and philosophies. Religion, as I see it, is concerned with man's relations with God and ethics are concerned with man's relations with man. The two are not the same, and are not made the same by sincere inquiry into the question: what is God? If reason leads people not to accept Christianity or any known religion, but they do not believe in the excellence of qualities such as truth, beauty and love, or believe in the platonic concept of the ideal, their beliefs may be to them the equivalent of a religion, but viewed objectively they are not religion … It seems to me that two of the essential attributes of religion are faith and worship; faith in a god and worship of that god."

1191
In applying criteria such as these, our learned judges have already broadly established the differences between a religion and a philosophy, and between religion and ethics. I have not quoted from their judgments at great length, but, as I understand it, they have already established that where Buddhism and Hinduism are recognised for the purpose of English law as constituting religions, Scientology and freemasonry are not. The list is by no means exhaustive. But the point I wish to make is that our learned judges have already proved themselves well capable of ascertaining what constitutes "religion", "worship" and "God" with accuracy, clarity and consistency. I can see no reason why they should not remain able to do so in the future.
Accordingly, it is my view that theoretical difficulties in dealing with obscure sects or philosophies should not be used by the government of the day as a blocking device to justify denying a large number of the members of the mainstream religious groups in this country the protection under the law to which they are entitled. The courts can deal with such imagined difficulties if and when they actually arise. British citizens should be free to worship God by whatever name they call God without being penalised or discriminated against because of this.
Nor should it be a precondition to legislation that it will not be promulgated until the intensity or quantity of incidents involving religious discrimination have reached a certain degree or level. If such criteria were to be applied across the board it might then be argued that murder should not be regarded as a criminal offence because it occurs relatively infrequently as compared with the incidence of armed robbery. In both the Torah and the Qur'an it is stated that if even one person is killed unjustly then it is as if all mankind had been killed.
As far as Muslims are concerned, there is no doubt that they follow a major religion whose primary purpose is worship of the Supreme Being. There is no doubt that some Muslims have been and are being discriminated against because of their religion. There is no doubt that at present there is no law in the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland, that protects against religious discrimination. The same applies to the followers of other major religions.
If a person is protected against discrimination because of the colour of his or her skin, why should that person not also be protected from being discriminated against because of the colour of his or her religious beliefs and practices? Those who implausibly argue that the law should only be skin deep should ask themselves what kind of justice there would be if our judges only considered the actus reus and not the mens rea.
Furthermore, as far as Muslims are concerned, the practices which tend to trigger the discrimination to which they are subjected in, for example, the employment sector are already well known and well documented. Apart from blind prejudice which requires no prior reason or justification for it to be expressed, Muslim women are sometimes
1192
discriminated against if they dress modestly and cover their hair. Muslim men are sometimes discriminated against if they wear a beard. Both Muslim men and women are sometimes discriminated against if they pray during their lunch or tea breaks, or if they fast during the holy month of Ramadan. These are not phenomena that are disputed. They are referred to almost daily in the media. They have been and are being researched in the groves of Academe. The Runnymede Trust has done significant work in this area. The research project being conducted at the University of Derby is a step in the right direction. While the experts debate and while the academics ponder, ordinary people suffer unnecessarily.
I find distasteful and obnoxious the argument that asserts that British Muslims who are discriminated against because of their religion should count themselves lucky if they only face ridicule and unfair dismissal in this country, when further east in the Balkans and the Caucasus the penalty is often rape, torture, imprisonment and even death. Whatever form such acts of discrimination on the grounds of religion take, whether extreme or not, there is no lawful justification to permit legally such acts to take place.
I also hasten to add that the proposed amendment in the Race Relations Act 1976 that I am seeking to introduce by means of the Race Relations (Religious Discrimination) Bill 2000 will afford protection not only to Muslims but also to the members of all the other major religions. In that sense it is a generous proposal, not a narrow one.
It is also a proposal that seeks to assist the government of the day to fulfil their obligations and duties under international law. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Convention on, Human Rights and has passed the Human Rights Act 1998 in order to incorporate the Convention rights into its domestic law. Once the Human Rights Act 1998 is in force, the government of the day will be under a duty, by virtue of Article 1 of the Convention, to secure, by passing secondary legislation where necessary, the rights guaranteed by the convention by providing an "effective remedy" in the English courts "without discrimination on any ground". If they fail to do so, the Government will then be in breach of Articles 1, 13, and 14 of the convention and, unless any such breach is remedied, will eventually and inevitably find themselves before the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. As regards race discrimination, the Government have fulfilled their duty and are at present in the process of extending the ambit of the Race Relations Act 1976 further. As regards religious discrimination, however, the Government have up to now not yet fulfilled their duty. My proposal will help the Government to do so.
For example, the Human Rights Act 1998 will not protect a while Muslim who is refused employment or denied promotion or dismissed from employment because he or she prays at midday during the lunch break or wears a beard or hijab. What kind of justice is this? Is such a state of affairs really acceptable?

1193
Is it right that the media should be prevented from ridiculing and attacking people because of the pigmentation of their skin but can with impunity promote inaccurate stereotypes of those who follow a particular religion and even present them as the enemy? Freedom of speech should not be demeaned by using it as a pretext for freedom of abuse, especially when such abuse can so easily incite others to indulge in more physical and frightening forms of attack.
Perhaps we can learn a lesson from more enlightened European countries which not only incorporated the provisions of ECHR into their domestic law years ago but have underpinned those rights by passing secondary legislation. For example, in Austria it is not legally permitted to discriminate against someone because of his or her religion. In that country politicians can be removed from office for doing so. The same is true of Germany, where there is already in place a mechanism whereby each of the major religions has recognised representatives who can present to the Government the concerns of their respective communities. The example and experience of those countries demonstrate that such laws are not difficult to formulate precisely or to implement equitably. That is why my Private Member's Bill is not, and does not need to be, lengthy.
In conclusion, I quote the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in this House last autumn:
"The fundamental question raised, with great power, cogency and eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, is the problem of Islamophobia. It is the problem of how to give British Muslims the right to effective remedies for arbitrary discrimination and unequal treatment of the kind that people like myself have if we are discriminated against as Jews on racial grounds.
"I personally find it strange that I should have a remedy if I am discriminated against on racial grounds but, for example, the noble Lord. Lord Haskel, should not have a remedy if he is discriminated against on religious grounds. When, as an officer in the Army, I experienced discrimination, I could never tell whether the anti-Semitism was on racial or religious grounds. Other noble Lords have referred to the complications, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in his important speech.
"There surely has to be an effective legal remedy for the wrong of religious discrimination as well as the wrong of racial discrimination. I suggest that those who raise technical objections to the framing of legislation should concentrate on the need for a legal remedy for British Muslims that is as effective as that which exists for other minorities in this country. That is the pressing social need that must be addressed".—[Official Report, 28/10/99; col. 470.]
I endorse the penetrating words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The noble Lord is to speak in today's debate and I look forward to hearing his contribution.
I believe that the Private Member's Bill which I promote will go some way to address a pressing social need by providing an effective legal remedy for discrimination, whether it be racial or religious or a combination of both. I am sure that the courts will apply it judiciously. I commend the Race Relations (Religious Discrimination) Bill to the House and seek
1194
the support of noble Lords in carrying it through to the next stage.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ahmed.)
7.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, living and working in Bradford, I share many of the concerns voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and in principle I support his Bill. In so doing I pay tribute to the remarkable work that he has done over many years, not least in the north of England and Yorkshire, in promoting harmony and good relations between people of many religions. That is something for which the noble Lord has earned gratitude from a great many people.
There is much anecdotal evidence of religious discrimination, but legislation cannot be built on anecdotes. I believe that it is a wise step, which is much to be commended, that the University of Derby has been asked to carry out the research which it is now undertaking. I and many others look forward to reading its report, which it is hoped will emerge in the autumn of this year. If we are to have legislation, we must have firm grounds on which to base it. This is a very complex area and I do not believe that we shall make haste very quickly, but it is worth taking the care and worth doing.
I should like to make a contribution from the point of view of practical day-by-day experience in a city like Bradford. I believe that legislation is a desirable step, but it will not in itself remove religious discrimination. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, is perfectly well aware—better than I—in Pakistan there is a blasphemy law that is meant to protect people of all religions. Sadly, it is all too frequently abused to try to solve petty disputes in villages. There is a man called Ayub Masih who has been in prison for a very long time and has the death penalty hanging over him. It is not known when that will be resolved. In 1997 I and some friends visited Shanti Nagar, where some appalling riots had taken place. We were told that they had arisen from a trivial abuse of the blasphemy law. I know that the Government of Pakistan wish to change the law and that there are extremists who make life difficult. I do not cite that example to criticise another country but to point out that sometimes even a law with good intent can be greatly abused by those of little principle. Education and openness to change must go hand in hand with legislation; otherwise, we shall not make very real progress.
Nor is discrimination always inflicted by the majority on the minority. Just after the Lawrence report appeared, statements were made which suggested that racial discrimination was inflicted by the majority on the minority. That is not true. We need to keep in perspective that discrimination can be inflicted by anybody on anybody else for racial and religious motives.
I am also aware that there is low-level harassment (as it is termed by the chairman of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia of the Runnymede

1195
Trust), such as spitting and abuse of that kind, because of a person's religion. I regret to say that my wife and I have been spat at by people who are not Christians. I have received a report of a women who walked innocently through the streets and was told that she was a white whore. We want to remove discrimination everywhere and ensure that nobody on any grounds indulges in racial discrimination for whatever reason.
Yet another complication arises from what is sometimes referred to as positive discrimination. It is said—I do not for a moment support it because I do not have any evidence—that on occasions the police may decline to press charges against somebody because they fear a backlash from extremists in a religious group. We must also work against that kind of discrimination so that the law is applied without fear or favour.
If we are to promote legislation—I believe that there is reason for so doing—we should at the same time take practical measures to encourage better relationships between people of different religions and thus, step by step, remove the possibility that people will resort to religious discrimination.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships about one or two simple steps in Bradford to that end. Shortly after I arrived there eight years ago, I received strong representations from Muslims who alleged racial and religious discrimination in employment. I invited people in industry and commerce to meet me. I certainly did not presume to tell them what to do, but many were able to offer examples of good practice. Along with legislation, I believe that we need to offer encouragement that comes from spelling out what good practice is and what is already being achieved.
In your Lordships' House a week or two ago, I was able to welcome the appointment of a Muslim adviser in prisons. That is a major step forward. When I became Bishop of Maidstone in 1987 and went to Maidstone Prison, it was the Anglican chaplain who sought to find an imam who would care for Muslim prisoners. There are good examples of people of one faith who strongly support others. If one has the misfortune, because of illness but for no other reason, to go to the Bradford Royal Infirmary or St Luke's Hospital, one will find that successive chaplains have built up a team of pastoral visitors some 60 or 70 strong which comprises Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews and Christians.
If we are to have legislation, we must have good practice which tries to prevent such discrimination alongside the legislation which punishes the discrimination. As I shall say one or two words which may be regarded as being critical of the Bradford Metropolitan District. Education Authority, perhaps I may say that the Bradford Metropolitan District Council has a prayer room in the city hall which is open to people of all faiths. If noble Lords believe that that is an excuse for providing it for Muslims, were the Bradford Metropolitan District Council to have the misfortune of having me as an employee, I should be there at midday every day to say my prayers as a
1196
Christian. I believe that that is a small but enlightened step that encourages people of different faiths and tries to prevent discrimination.
I mentioned education because it cannot be removed from the scene. Problems with education fuel religious discrimination in a city such as Bradford. With regard to the 1999 GCSE results where live or more A to C grades were achieved, the national average was 46.1 per cent. In Bradford the Figures were: whites, 34 per cent; Pakistanis, 21.8 per cent; Pakistani males, 16.7 per cent; females, 27.8 per cent; white males, 29.9 per cent; females, 38.1 per cent. Those are simply the statistics. However, the tension and suspicion surrounding education and the feeling that one has under-achieved, that one is of no use, and so on, are in my view a major contributor to unease between people of different faiths and different races. The sooner we are able to address that issue so that youngsters who come from Muslim backgrounds can feel that they achieve and are on a level playing field, the better it will be, and we shall remove yet another reason for religious discrimination.
I make a plea, too, that our policymakers should learn to distinguish between religion and culture. In my view, much religious discrimination comes from ignorance. There is a big difference between what is Islam and what may be Pakistani or Kashmiri culture. Long visits to Pakistan by schoolchildren are culture. That has nothing directly to do with Islam. Arranged marriages with consent are entirely consistent with Islam; forced marriages are contrary to Islam. I believe that we should be very careful when those who are not Muslims refer glibly and easily to the marriage practices of those who are Muslims. We can easily get it wrong and cause a great deal of offence.
Halal meat is Islam; curry is culture, as is fish and chips. Noble Lords may believe that that is a trivial remark, but I am told that in the schools in Bradford most of the Muslim children go for fish and chips and most of the white children go for curry It is a rather trivial matter but when one talks about another faith it is important to know what one is talking about. Much of the abuse that causes offence comes out of ignorance.
The mosque culture and the school culture need to be helped to come together. At the moment they pull away from each other. Children learn by rote, perhaps from an imam who speaks little or no English, and then go into an entirely different culture in a school. If we can begin to address that, we shall begin to remove some of the causes of religious discrimination.
I hope that noble Lords do not feel that I have deviated too much. I want to support the idea of legislation. However, I want to make the point firmly that I fear that that in itself will achieve very little unless we address the underlying causes. When we do that and follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, over many years, we really shall make progress and perhaps the legislation will be little used.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, he spoke early on in his

1197
speech of the need either for firm evidence or for further evidence. There is a difference. It did not come over entirely clearly. If the right reverend Prelate remembers, he may wish to clarify that point, particularly as he then went on to discuss matters in relation to the work of the University of Derby. I believe that it would also be helpful for Hansard to be clear regarding what the right reverend Prelate said.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I apologise for my bad articulation. I meant to say "firm" because anecdote is fine, but legislation can be built on firm evidence.
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I support the Bill of my noble friend Lord Ahmed, not only for the reasons that he gives and the evidence of discrimination, of which I have also seen unjust and harrowing examples as chair of Camden's racial equality council, but also for another set of reasons. I shall describe them briefly.
They are based on the fact that, quite apart from the essential human rights aspect of discrimination, discrimination is a market failure. To deny people an equal opportunity for a job, a promotion, a contract or an education is to lose out on talent. It is not only the individual who suffers a disadvantage; so do the employer, the contractor and society as a whole.
Moreover, there could be a particularly disadvantageous consequence of discrimination on religious grounds in the UK. As we have heard, that includes substantially discrimination against our Muslim fellow citizens, although it is not limited to them. That is because, while Islam is a minority religion here, in the global context in which we live and trade it is a majority religion. Some of the ancient world religions help to form the cultures of the newer economies. In the United Kingdom we are fortunate to have many personal and commercial links with those economies because of our past history of immigration and emigration. That history was not without pain, even atrocity. However, over succeeding generations it has proved a resource and an opportunity—an opportunity to be at home in and thrive in a global world.
No doubt that was one of the reasons why the Foreign Office made a very interesting video entitled "Islam in Britain" for distribution abroad. It shows positively, but not over-rosily, the lives of British Muslims. It shows my noble friend Lord Ahmed being introduced into your Lordships' House, which is a very positive sight. That part of the film was quite rosy too, but that was because of the colour of the film. The film shows, above all, that the UK can have strong ties outside its location on the edge of western Europe.
I suggest that those links would be much enhanced if those who saw the video overseas and who invest in and trade with the UK also knew that we mean what we say when we talk about being a multi-cultural society by outlawing discrimination on the grounds of religion. The UK would not be unusual in doing that;
1198
far from it. We would be joining many other multicultural societies: the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most of our fellow members of the European Union, of which my noble friend Lord Ahmed mentioned two, in making protection against religious discrimination part of the legal or constitutional framework. Our own Human Rights Act provides a first basis of protection in respect of the rights in the Act. We would be signalling that we had a modern and inclusive idea of human rights, which grappled with the real issues faced by our own citizens. For the reasons I have outlined, that addition would have a global resonance in our relations with many of our allies and natural markets.
Taking further the proposal of my noble friend, I express the hope that there could be included in the text of the Bill words to cover those of us whose ethics do not derive from revealed religion. That is the intention of the words "or belief" added after the word "religion" in the relevant provisions of the various international human rights instruments which the UK has ratified and we should try to meet the point.
Finally, I warmly commend the Bill to your Lordships. It would be a great step forward to enact it.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friend Lord Ahmed. I am grateful to my noble friend for his latest efforts and for his Private Member's Bill, which seeks to extend the ambit of the Race Relations Act 1976 to include discrimination on grounds of religion. I wholeheartedly agree with him that the move is long overdue and an essential step towards the emergence of a truly pluralistic, tolerant and just society in today's Britain.
The final justification for any law, as noted by Albert Camus, is the good it does or fails to do to the society of a given place and time. Today's Britain desperately needs a law to protect and redress religious discrimination so that a vast number of its citizens can talk of genuine tolerance and justice.
The amendment suggested by my noble friend would not only reflect the concerns and issues we face today but also greatly contribute towards combating one of the most unacceptable social ills threatening society; that of religious discrimination and intolerance. Like all forms of discrimination, religious discrimination has its pecking order, the most vulnerable being women and children. I referred to that at length when I addressed your Lordships' House last October.
There are too many cases up and down the country of women who have been physically and verbally abused and threatened because of their faith, in addition to suffering discrimination in the field of employment, to which I shall return shortly. Anecdotal or not, the experience of Islamophobia, for instance, is an ugly reality that dangerously wounds, scars and alienates members of the Muslim community. It is the oxygen that fuels both alienation and extremism and cannot be allowed to tarnish and disfigure our society.

1199
I agree with the wise contribution of the right reverend Prelate. However, comparison with other countries such as Pakistan, with the entirely different aspirations, practices and expectations of its citizens, is not appropriate within this context. To my best belief there are no race and sex discrimination laws in place. There may be very good examples in other places. I wholeheartedly agree with the contribution of the right reverend Prelate as regards the impact on education.
That is not only in place in Bradford. I have been talking about Tower Hamlets all afternoon, and this is a matter which readily comes to mind. The continuous unacceptable level of educational achievement remains abysmal and must be addressed. I shall return to that many times in your Lordships' House.
I return to the subject at hand. Lack of recognition of the fundamental role of religion in the lives of people, particularly those from the ethnic minority communities, has had a profound impact, whether or not we recognise it. Over the years it has meant the bypassing of faith communities in securing resource allocation. The perception and understanding of society purely on race categorisation has meant the marginalisation and impoverishment of large sections of the community. For instance, resource allocation for blacks or Asians normally totally bypasses the Muslim community, which is a multi-racial and multiethnic community with distinct needs.
I draw the attention of your Lordships to a report published today by the Cabinet Office, entitled Minority Ethnic Issues in Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal, which totally misses the point on faith-based regeneration. Had this law been in place, that would not be the case. Without the proposed amendment, the legal situation can best be described as necessary but not sufficient. In order that the basic objectives in applying race laws are achieved, laws against religious discrimination must be introduced, and must be inevitable.
Many people feel that they are discriminated against in employment and service delivery because their religious background and practices are not recognised or are simply ignored. In many public sector organisations, people are discouraged from putting their religious beliefs into practice. They are prevented, for example, from taking leave during festivals and on other important religious days. I am not referring to midday prayers, which have been covered adequately.
The present situation also implies lack of recognition and respect. People from many faiths, including members of the Muslim communities, feel their identity is not recognised by law. The situation has been made even worse by the reluctance to include religion in the forthcoming census. During times in which almost all decisions are numerically led—having been a local government deputy leader for nine years, I should know—lack of basic statistics will put many faith communities at a great disadvantage as regards resource allocation. The lack of monitoring based on one's religious affiliation has had the effect of making faith communities invisible in today's Britain. That cannot be just or right.
1200
The cost of tolerating an environment in which faith communities feel unprotected and vulnerable cannot be measured in terms of anguish, pain, the deep sense of isolation and the resultant marginalisation.
The suggested amendment to the law would be a major leap in engaging the minority community, as well as ensuring that the Britain of today and tomorrow is a society which genuinely believes in and is guided by the high principle of respecting all people regardless of their background, gender, ethnicity and religion.
The proposed legislation is particularly important also because of its timing. We are at the moment in one of the country's best epochs in terms of having a government, a Prime Minister and a Home Secretary totally committed to confronting the forces of discrimination and prejudice. Not having a law against religious discrimination actually goes against all the basic principles of this Government, who have shown beyond all doubt a commitment towards crating a society that is free and tolerant for all our citizens. If they fail to introduce both the relevant religious discrimination legislation and the religious question in the 2001 national census, it will have a major impact on their credibility with a significant and important part of our community.
"The law", said Martin Luther King—himself a man of great faith—"does not change the heart. But it does restrain the heartless". It signals to everyone certain standards and values and it states basic terms of debate. In that way, it shapes, as it gives expression to, moral opinions and outlooks.
The legal change for which my noble friend is calling is essential to help crystallise a new climate of opinion which is already present and to bring religion into the terms of debate of what kind of society we want to have in this country. Until and unless such changes have been introduced, Britain cannot claim to be an inclusive and a fair society.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for introducing this Bill. He was kind enough to refer to some remarks that I made in a previous debate that he initiated on 28th October 1999, and I shall not repeat what I then said. I shall simply summarise my position by indicating that I support the aims of this Bill. I believe that the absence of an effective remedy for the injustice of treating someone less favourably than another on the grounds of their religious beliefs or political opinion is a source of real injustice and that there should be an effective remedy.
I agree also that international human rights law requires the introduction of legislation. The ratification by the United Kingdom, by the present Government, of the ILO Discrimination in Employment Convention No. 111, which I much welcome, is one further indication of the need to do so.
I listened carefully to the important speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford and found his reference to the complexities of the situation

1201
and his illustrations very telling. On only one matter did I disagree with him; that is, the suggestion that one needed what he called "firm evidence" of the problem before legislating. There is firm evidence that the British Muslim community—a very large community—feels a real sense of injustice, and we know that the Race Relations Act is only able to tackle the problem indirectly. It cannot tackle the problem directly because Muslims are not an ethnic group whereas, for example, Jews—of which I am one—are recognised to be an ethnic group. The Act can only tackle the problem if there is an indirect impact upon Muslims of an ethnic nature. The Human Rights Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, pointed out, can only tackle the problem in a limited way because the nondiscrimination guarantee in Article 14 is parasitic on the rest of the convention, which does not cover employment.
So I have no doubt about the need for legislation. I have no doubt about the aims of this measure. If the proposition were put before the House that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, I would certainly be in favour of it. But the rest of my remarks are designed to urge the promoters of the Bill to think more carefully about some of the underlying problems.
I spent more than two years of my life working on the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act as special adviser in the Home Office to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I can say therefore that I have real personal experience of the kinds of issue that need to be tackled. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, will forgive me for saying that, even if the right bit of the Race Relations Act was referred to in his one clause Bill, which it is not—it is a boring and pedantic point—we cannot simply amend the Race Relations Act 1976 in the way suggested. I am sure he will be the first to recognise that.
Perhaps I may indicate the problems and make it clear that I am not suggesting that they are not capable of solution. They have been tackled in Northern Ireland in that context, and tackled recently and imaginatively in the Irish Republic, to take only two examples. Such legislation illustrates that the problems are not insoluble. But they are real and I want to raise them now, without wishing in any way to encourage the Minister who will undoubtedly latch on to what I am saying as evidence of the need for further time to consider all these problems, and rightly so.
The first problem is that to discriminate against someone because of their religious belief is not as simple and straightforward as to discriminate against someone because of their colour, race, ethnic origin, sex or gender. To practise racial or sex discrimination is to discriminate against someone for something they cannot control. It is because of their descent, their birth, their genetic inheritance. It is an affront to their common humanity. To discriminate against someone because of their religious belief or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, pointed out, their political opinion—both forbidden forms of discrimination in international law and in Northern Ireland—is not to
1202
discriminate against them because of their common humanity; it is to discriminate against them because of their belief system, because of their faith.
It is as unfair to discriminate against somebody because they have no faith as it is to discriminate against somebody because they have faith. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said in relation to his definition of religion—I declare a professional interest in that I advised the Church of Scientology about its application for charitable status in the past—Buddhists, who do not belong to a theistic religion, would regard their religion as a real religion, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, would himself. The English cases to which he referred as being the golden thread in this area, I am sorry to say, are a tangled web of inconsistent principles in which English judges have done their best to fit in recognition of Buddhism, a non-theistic religion, with the theistic religions of Islam, Judaism, Christianity and so forth.
Therefore, although I do not feel it is necessary to define religion in the Bill any more than the Human Rights Act does, one must recognise that if a Bill of this nature were enacted it would undoubtedly create problems that would have to be tackled in relation to what is meant by religion and religious belief. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, that it would be wrong to cover only religious belief and not, for example, political opinion. That would clearly be inconsistent with our international obligations.
That is the first real problem that needs to be tackled. The second problem is whether it is sensible to amend the Race Relations Act in the way that this Bill does, or whether there should be a separate Bill because of the special problems in relation to religious discrimination. Or, as I would prefer, perhaps there should be comprehensive legislation which covered equal treatment without discrimination on any ground; for example, age, disability, sexual orientation as well as religious belief and political opinion.
I believe that all that is consistent with legislation in other countries. Would it not be sensible, as I have been urging in this House for some time, to have a radical overhaul of our often inconsistent, incomprehensible mess of equality legislation and to have a single effective equality code that included religion? I would argue that that is a difficult ambition to achieve but one that would be worth the attempt.
The next problem is whether the grounds should be confined, as in this Bill, to religion or whether non-theistic religions and political beliefs should be covered? Should such legislation be confined to employment, as was originally the case in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, or, as I would argue, should it also cover goods, services and facilities? That is a policy choice that needs to be considered. It is easier to get a Bill through Parliament if it is narrowly confined to employment, but is that sensible?
Should such a Bill cover indirect discrimination as well as direct discrimination? Much more difficult problems arise if it were to cover both. I would argue that it should, but the implications would need to be thought through. What about the exceptions? The

1203
exceptions in the Race Relations Act can be pretty narrow because there are few situations in which a person's colour or race is relevant to a job or the provision of a service. In regard to religion, as the legislation in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic shows, one needs wider exceptions where a person's faith, or lack of it, is relevant to a particular employment or occupation, or to the provision of a particular service, such as separate voluntary religious schools and employment in those schools. Again, defining the exceptions where religion, or the absence of religion, is relevant needs to be worked out.
All of those problems are capable of solution. I suggest that they are better solved not by amending the Race Relations Act, not even by having a separate religious discrimination Bill, but by having, as the United States and Canada have, a comprehensive code that is user-friendly, intelligible and capable of being enforced. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that legislation is not a panacea. It seems to me to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition, and all the other matters to which he and other noble Lords have drawn attention need to be addressed as well.
To sum up, I strongly support the aims of the legislation. I believe that much more work will need to be carried out, not in obtaining evidence of the problem, but in persuading the Government to find the political will to tackle the defects in our existing equality legislation and to bring forward comprehensive legislation, of which this could be an important part. I believe that that aspiration will not be accomplished this side of the general election, but I say, respectfully, that I hope that it will find its way into the manifestos of the main parties. It will certainly be in the manifesto of my party, as it has been in the past.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for bringing this Bill before us and giving us another opportunity to consider the subject. First, I agree that religious discrimination is fundamentally wrong. We are all on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, in relation to the morals and the principle behind his Bill.
We also recognise the dangerous force of religious prejudice. Throughout history there are examples, and today there are far too many examples, of the most hideous wars between different religions that have scarred our planet. Some of the most vicious wars have been not between different religions but between different denominations within a religion. The Troubles—I believe that is the technical term—in Northern Ireland are given that character, although, as in so many other modern cases, the dispute is not about any point of religion at all. It is a case of religion being used as an expression of difference, rather than there being a religious dispute in the theological sense.
At different times and in different circumstances each religion and each denomination within the main religions has been in a superior position and has pressed its views on others. In Great Britain those
1204
powerful forces are at work in lesser ways than war, but nevertheless in damaging ways. On a global scale, I believe that we can claim to have a good record, but that does not mean that there is no discrimination or that we can ignore it.
Like the Minister, I come from Leicester, which is a city that in my lifetime has changed its religious composition along with its racial composition, as have other places, including the city where the right reverend Prelate has his cathedral. The reason why most people from overseas came to live here was extreme religious discrimination or religious persecution in other countries. We can be proud of the fact that they have found a haven here, but not so proud of the discrimination that takes place here.
There is also no doubt that Leicester, like our country, has benefited from the vitality and hard work of many who have come to live in this country. Their arrival has perhaps led to curry being accepted as our national dish. Of course, tea from the same sub-continent has long been our principal national drink.
Given the age-old nature and the divisive force of religious divisions, I believe it would be rash to suggest that we can abolish such matters by legislation. Of course, the Bill does not seek to do that; it seeks to protect people against the effects. It is true, as the right reverend Prelate said, that education and positive actions must go with any legislation.
Returning to the law, the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has made clear, is to draft a satisfactory law that will provide a useful weapon against discrimination. It is partly a matter of defining religion itself, but also of deciding what is unacceptable. After all, religions themselves discriminate. Religious schools, as the noble Lord, said, hire teachers of the appropriate faith to teach their children. One cannot take a full part in a Church of England communion service or a Roman Catholic mass unless one has made a proper commitment to the appropriate body. I recall some cases relating to the rates payable on churches, which are defined as places of public worship, that hinged on such matters as whether everybody could play a full part in the services.
It is a difficult area. It is true that, although some people convert from one religion to another or from one denomination to another within a certain religion, most of us follow the religion of our forefathers. That means that in most cases religion comes with our race and nationality. For that reason, some religious groups can be regarded also as ethnic groups, and so find themselves covered by the Race Relations Act, which—I hope I shall not be misunderstood in saying this—in some respects is unfortunate, because it leaves others out in the cold, simply because their religion is not so tightly tied to the racial distinction.
There are also the problems as regards how fine the distinction should go; in other words, should it cover discrimination between denominations like Sunni and Shi'a Moslems or between Roman Catholics, Baptists and those in the Church of England? There is also the difficulty that arises because of certain groups or sects

1205
that call themselves a religion. Indeed, there are some well-known examples in that respect and some of those groups are not what most of us would call "religious".
The bottom line is the fact that religious discrimination is wrong and we certainly deplore it. But we must find a law that will work and one which will cover the matters that are the primary source of concern. Obviously, jobs and the provision of services, and so on, are first in the queue, if I may put it that way, but some of the most offensive and also the most damaging examples of discrimination are to be found in the form of words used about Muslims, in particular, in press reports. Indeed, such wording implies, and often more or less says, that all Muslims are fanatics who are bent upon destroying the rest of us. That seems to me to be exceptionally damaging and yet, in some respects, it is the most difficult to deal with from the legal point of view. It is also an absolutely false and an entirely wrong impression to give of Muslims.
Once again, we are grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this important issue to our attention. I understand that progress is being made in addressing the problems; indeed, we await the report from the University of Derby, which will no doubt represent further progress. However, much more work needs to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, with his great experience of such matters, set out the arguments in that respect in a much more precise way than I can. However, the fact that the Bill has been placed before us in this way has permitted us to debate the issues and helped to push forward that necessary work. We are grateful to the noble Lord.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, join in the congratulations expressed to my noble friend Lord Ahmed on the manner in which he moved the Second Reading of his Private Member's Bill. Indeed, it displayed all his moderation, his good sense and his commitment to this particular cause. I was delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford saw fit to pay such a proper tribute to my noble friend for what he has done in the past and for what he is doing at present. I should like to echo those sentiments from the Front Bench.
I should also like to make some mention of all the speakers who have taken part in the debate, but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not do so. I must mention the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in particular. His reputation in this field goes way before him. He is wary that, in speaking from the Front Bench, I shall latch on to the line of his arguments; indeed, if he will forgive me for saying so, it is extremely hard whenever one is debating such matters not to latch on, either subtly or not so subtly, to the arguments that the noble Lord has deployed with such expertise and skill over many years. I shall do my best not to latch on to the noble Lord's arguments tonight, except perhaps the more general one.
1206
The fact that my speech from the Front Bench will not be very long does not mean that the Government believe that this is a minor matter. We believe that religious discrimination in our country is a serious and important issue and one which is worthy of careful and detailed consideration before deciding on the best course of action.
This country obviously has a strong Christian history, but it is also a country that enjoys the benefits of a broad and diverse religious landscape. We live in a multi-cultural society and we are infinitely the better for it. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cope, mention Leicester from which we both hail in one way or another. If anyone would like any proof that we are infinitely the better for our multi-cultural society, he or she should spend a few days in Leicester, or even in London, in order to see the improvement that our new society has made.
However, we shall not become a successful multicultural society until we value the contribution made by each and every one of our diverse communities; take pride in our diversity and celebrate it—and I mean "celebrate it"—to the world; and until people from different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds can live and work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding, while retaining their distinctive identities. Until then, we shall not have the successful multi-cultural society to which everyone in this House is committed.
The Government are determined to take a strong lead in eliminating all forms of discrimination and intolerance. I do not believe that it is going too far to say that most reasonably-minded people would say that this Government's commitment to those causes has been pretty well demonstrated in the first three years of their time in office.
The Government are especially alive to the concerns expressed about religious discrimination and the lack of effective action to tackle it. In particular, we heard most movingly about the concerns of the British Muslim community on the issue. Moreover, the Church of England, in the form of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in our previous debate, has also expressed its commitment to exploring the serious and complex concerns raised by the question of religious discrimination. That was also reflected in the contribution made this evening by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford.
There is an anomaly in the law at present—it would be foolish to deny it—whereby some faith groups are protected, while others are not. But as a government we need to be absolutely clear about the nature of the problem before we can tackle it. We do not yet know to what extent other minority faith communities suffer from discrimination, and we do not fully understand the complex relationship between racial and religious identity and prejudice. We do not yet know what are the most effective methods of tackling religious discrimination.
That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary commissioned the first significant empirical research into religious discrimination in the United

1207
Kingdom by way of a contract with the University of Derby. This is an important initiative. The research will take place over a period of 18 months. As noble Lords may well know, an interim report was published earlier this year. The final report is due to be published in the autumn of this year. The Government, along with noble Lords in this House, look forward in anticipation to reading that important document. The aim of the research is clear: to assess the scale and nature of religious discrimination in England and Wales. When the report is published, we shall take account of its findings and the research when considering the range of responses available to us in tackling such discrimination.
I shall outline briefly the background to the research. Its purpose is fourfold: first, to assess the evidence of religious discrimination, both actual and perceived; secondly, to describe the patterns shown by evidence of this discrimination—its overall scale, its main victims, its main perpetrators and the main ways in which the discrimination manifests itself; thirdly, to indicate the extent to which religious discrimination overlaps with racial discrimination; and, fourthly, but not as a last word on the subject, to identify the range of policy options available for dealing with such discrimination.
I turn now to the census mentioned by my noble friend Lady Uddin. One of the key messages that we have heard from minority faith communities was that they felt, as it were, invisible when it came to monitoring and statistics. The ethnic origin question, which was introduced in the last census in 1991, brought us a long way forward in addressing the needs of ethnic minorities but did nothing to help to identify the needs of minority faith communities. The census as it currently stands offers no detailed information about religious affiliation in relation to the Moslem, Sikh, Jewish and other faith communities.
The Census 2001 White Paper proposed, interestingly enough for the first time since 1851, to include a question on religion in relation to England and Wales. The Bill introduced in this House by the noble. Lord, Lord Weatherill, is due to get its Second Reacting in another place in two days' time on 9th June. Subject to parliamentary approval, we shall finally have reliable data on our faith communities, which will help us to identify and address their needs. One very much hopes that all in another place will ensure that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, moves forward.
There is no quick-fix solution to the issue of religious discrimination. It would not be reasonable to commit to amending existing legislation without having a clear understanding of the mischief that we intend to address and without making sure that we address it. The results of the research will provide an important evidential basis on which to make decisions about what the appropriate response should be.
The Human Rights Act, which has been mentioned, comes into force on 2nd October. It is expected to provide relief in cases of alleged religious discrimination involving the treatment of individuals
1208
by public bodies. We shall also take account of the implications of the framework directive in the area of employment under Article 13 of the EC Treaty of Amsterdam.
This is an important issue. We want to reassure the House that we take it seriously. However, I do not think that I can do better than to paraphrase the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford: if we are to have legislation, we need to be sure about it. In other words, we need to be sure that we are getting it right.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that he will clarify a point about the University of Derby study. Will that include a policy evaluation of the way in which legislation in comparable democratic societies has been framed and operates in practice? I have in mind particularly the two recent Acts enacted in the Republic of Ireland and the legislation in, for example, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Northern Ireland. Will the study consider that in the way that the Street report did back in 1967, which Sir Geoffrey Howe, as he then was, Geoffrey Bindman and the late Professor Harry Street undertook? They looked at the pattern of legislation in North America, and that was a great help. Will the University of Derby study take that into account, or should it be left to separate initiatives? I have in mind, for example, Professor Hepple's ongoing study into that matter at the moment. I hope that the noble Lord will clarify that matter.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking that important question. I am told that the interim report which was published earlier this year, which I have not had the advantage of reading—I would not be at all surprised to hear that the noble Lord has read it—included some references to exactly the points that the noble Lord makes. As we speak, it is not intended that the final report will deal with the matters that he mentions. However, I assure the noble Lord that I shall relate his comments to the Home Office to ensure that when decisions are taken they are taken on the basis of, as it were, comparative studies of what happens elsewhere.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, this has been a helpful debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in it. I am grateful for the support I have received from all sides of the House. I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford for having travelled from Liverpool, where he was attending a conference, to speak in the debate.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his advice, which I take note of. I have taken note of all the advice that has been given. I request the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Russia
8.25 p.m.
Lord Blakerrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the state of United Kingdom relations with Russia is satisfactory, in the light of the presidential elections there.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on an important topic. The debate takes place at a relevant time. Any consideration of our relations with Russia must start with President Putin. My impression is that he is likely to turn out to be a useful person with whom to do business. He has the advantage, which was not available to his predecessor, of commanding a majority in the Duma. He was elected with 53 per cent of the popular vote, which puts him in a strong position.
The policy statements of his government and his own actions give a strong impression that he is a genuine democrat. However, I think that in that connection we have to make two reservations. The first is that he appears to be rather heavy-handed with the media. We have had recent examples of that. Secondly, of course, there is the whole problem of Chechnya. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that we support the Government in the representations that they have made to Russia in that connection, and we shall continue to give them our support. Can the Minister who is to reply to the debate report any progress by the commission which President Putin appointed to look into that question?
I wish to raise three other topics. The first concerns economic relations. Russia's economy is in a disastrous situation. The IMF estimates that its GDP is now equivalent to 2 per cent of that of the United States. There has been an immense flight of capital. Domestic demand has fallen dramatically. Capital investment has dropped every year for the past 12 years. Of course the European Union has an interest in the success of the Russian economy. The European Union accounts for 40 per cent of Russia's trade. It is in our interest to help Russia, if we are allowed to do so. We can help by encouraging the development of institutions which will help the rule of law and by encouraging observation of the rule of law. Those are two key factors in the future of Russia's economy. We can help Russia to prepare for admission to the World Trade Organisation.
The next subject I want to cover is the question of ballistic missile defence. That is even more important than the two topics I have already mentioned. Noble Lords will be familiar with the proposals that President Clinton has put forward in recent days for anti-ballistic missile screens in Alaska and in the rest of the United States. It is pretty clear that if those projects went forward, they would involve a breach of the antiballistic missile treaty, unless that treaty were amended.
I was intrigued by a reply which the Minister gave to a Starred Question on 18th May on this subject. She said that the Government had been speaking to
1210
Moscow and Washington about the ABM treaty and the need for an agreement. I am rather surprised that that remark—which I believe is important—has not, as far as I know, been taken up in the House. Will she elaborate on that when she replies? Will she say what the Government want to see in the agreement to which she referred, if it can be achieved? What do the Government see as the United Kingdom's role?
Ballistic missile defence is a matter of great interest to countries other than the United States and Russia, not least to the United Kingdom. There is a very important question as to whether, if such an antiballistic missile system were installed, it would work. I know of no proof that it would. I foresee that we might have a long and difficult process of negotiation, involving many countries, only to find after all that, with all the pain it would entail, the system did not work.
If the matter is mishandled there are some serious dangers—danger of the loss of START II; failure to embark on START III negotiations; failure to achieve any international agreement on the control of fissile material; dangerous consequences perhaps for the effectiveness of our own nuclear deterrent; and in particular a worsening of relations between Russia and the West, which could be serious and long-lasting.
Why is President Clinton in such a hurry? I am not convinced that there is the need for hurry that he seems to feel. As I understand it, he was proposing to make a decision on the matter this summer. It is clear from last weekend's discussions between the two presidents that any agreement, if it is achieved at all, will take some time to achieve. I do not see how it can be achieved by this summer.
Nevertheless, last weekend's meeting had some constructive results. The statement of principles is quite important. It reaffirmed the ABM treaty, but agreed that it could be amended. It showed an acceptance by Mr. Putin that there is a threat from rogue states; the first time, I think, that Russia has accepted that. It agreed that 68 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium would be made unusable by the two participant countries. It also agreed that a joint centre would be set up in Moscow, manned by nationals of the two countries, to exchange information about launches of ballistic missiles, including, in due course, missiles launched from countries other than the two directly involved. That agreement has potential for interesting development.
The third question that I want to raise is that of the broader political relations between us and Russia. Critical engagement, which I understand is the phrase that the Government are inclined to use, particularly about Chechnya, is not enough when we look at our relations with Russia as a whole. We should be bolder than aspiring simply to that, because Russia is no longer a belligerent and stubborn enemy. We should achieve better results in understanding its concerns, especially the concern that is quite clear from recent Russian official documents, since President Putin has been in office—the concern not to be sidelined.

1211
The best example of a mistake made by the West in that context occurred in Kosovo, when NATO provided no role for Russia in peace-keeping planned to take place after the ceasefire, despite the fact that the ceasefire was secured by Mr. Chernomyrdin, the former Russian Prime Minister, working with President Ahtisaari of Finland. That led, we will all remember, to the dramatic seizure by the Russian forces of Pristina airport. The Russian proposal was to overfly Eastern Europe with several thousand troops corning into Kosovo, which was thwarted only by the courageous refusal of, I think, three East European countries to allow them to overfly.
The reality is that we avoided a clash between the West and Russia by a fairly narrow margin. I have never understood, and have never seen explained, how NATO failed to provide in advance for a Russian role. The Prime Minister played a prominent part in NATO's affairs at the time. KFOR had its origins in NATO's rapid reaction corps, in which the United Kingdom has a central place. After the Pristina airport event NATO rapidly found a role for Russia, which shows that it could have been found in advance. I do not understand how that failure occurred.
I shall be interested to hear the noble Baroness's reaction to that question, because it seems to me that that incident, along with others that I do not have time to go into, has rankled in the minds of especially the Russian military ever since. That accounts to a large extent for the tougher and more militant line that Russia has taken in its external affairs. We must recognise that Russia has great potential for trouble for the West if we do not secure a more lasting and better relationship with it. It could, for example, accentuate the selling to other countries of arms, including nuclear materials, for which it has already been to some extent responsible. If it lost faith in the West, or had bad relations with the West, it could one day team up with China, if ever China became more hostile.
The best way of influencing Russia for the better in the future is to determine to establish warmer and closer relations, and especially to understand Russia's concerns better. In the past few days President Clinton has said that the European Union and the United States should integrate Russia into the world community and that,
"no doors can be sealed shut to Russia—not NATO's, not the European Union's".
I do not go as far as that, but at least he was pointing in the right direction.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I have various business links with Russia. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for putting down this Unstarred Question. We are having an extremely important debate, and I am sorry that there are not more Peers participating in it.
As an aside, I would pick up the noble Lord's second point, about the importance of the ABM Treaty and the national missile defence issue, which President
1212
Clinton and President Putin debated over the weekend. Yesterday I was at the assembly of WEU where we debated the issue. The consensus there was that it was likely to dominate relations between Russia and the United States for the next decade. It will be of huge importance.
I initiated a debate about relations with Russia on 6th April 1998. That debate concentrated on trade relations with Russia and with the former Soviet Union as a whole. I was rereading the debate this afternoon. All the broad points that one can make today were made then: the need for long-term investment, for long-term relationships and for a multifaceted approach to building institutional relationships. While those broad points are true, there has been a roller-coaster ride over the past couple of years for those who have invested in Russia. Some of the major British investments proudly mentioned in the debate two years ago have since turned sour. People are even more cautious about investing new money in Russia in the current climate.
I do not want to concentrate on trade. I want to mention some other issues to do with our relationship as a whole with Russia. I want to mention Chechnya, which has dominated our relationship in recent months. My noble friend the Minister has answered a number of questions about Chechnya and has rightly referred to the need for a critical engagement with Russia on the issue. She will know that our noble friend Lord Judd has been at the forefront of that critical engagement through his work with the Council of Europe where Russia has now been suspended from the parliamentary assembly. Members of the parliamentary assembly will be looking to see the results of that critical engagement before they consider restoring the voting rights of the members of the Duma and will see what progress the Russian Government have made in response to that critical engagement.
As to other institutional arrangements—a point touched on in a slightly different way by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker—I, too, wish to talk about NATO. I shall argue a different point from the noble Lord. I believe that NATO is proving quite constructive in rebuilding relations with Russia, particularly over recent months. We have seen the NATO/Russia permanent joint council start working again; and we have seen KFOR operating quite effectively with Russian troops as a part of it and Russian commanders in NATO. It is interesting that the tough security and defence institutions are finding it easier to work with the Russian Government than are the human rights-based institutions such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE.
This was a point emphasised to me on Monday at the WEU assembly. We were addressed by Javier Solana, the European Union high representative, and there was an opportunity for parliamentarians, including Russian parliamentarians, to ask him questions. He was asked about his personal relationship with President Putin and he gave a very convincing answer. He said that he had met him on a number of occasions and had discussed a number of issues in great depth. He certainly made the argument

1213
that President Putin was very interested in developments in European security and the missile issues to which we have referred. I doubt whether representatives from human rights institutions such as the Council of Europe would have had quite such a positive response to their discussions with President Putin. I am arguing that, somewhat paradoxically, there are greater opportunities for constructive diplomacy through these security-based institutions than there are through human rights-based institutions.
I—like everyone in the debate, I suspect—have made many Russian friends over the past 10 years or so. A point worth repeating is that personal relationships seem to be more important in Russia than in other parts of the world. They are fundamental to doing business and achieving ends. Here in London, of course, it is now very common to hear Russian spoken in the streets, on the buses—everywhere. My noble friend Lady Smith of Gilmorehill has done a huge amount of work to foster relations between the Russian Duma and the Westminster Parliament.
Criticism is part of the nature of a mature and growing relationship. A constructive criticism—which I know is the approach taken by the Government—is something we can offer Russia without undermining our growing friendship.
I have briefly talked about trade, about Chechnya, about security and defence and about the general spirit of a critical engagement among friends. I have suggestions in each of those areas.
On trade, I agree completely with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that it is about building competence in Russian institutions. The Russians themselves have lost all confidence in their banks, in their law and in their institutions. I very much hope that the Know-How Fund and the TACIS funds and the like will be increasingly directed towards helping the Russians to rebuild their institutions so that the Russian people themselves have faith in them.
As to Chechnya, ultimately the ball is in the Russians' court to demonstrate that they understand the European Convention on Human Rights, having signed up to it when they joined the Council of Europe.
As to security and defence, there is a paradox here. There are tremendous opportunities in security and defence for building a number of relationships at different levels. As I have argued before, I believe that such institutions are in advance of other institutions in re-establishing relations with Russia.
The Unstarred Question asks whether relations with Russia are satisfactory in the light of the presidential elections. I suspect that my Russian friends would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, when he said that President Putin is a man with whom we can do business. From different political parties, they all say to me that he is honest, he is young and he is able. They are all more hopeful for their future than they were a year or so ago.
1214
I hope that when my noble friend replies to the debate she will speak about the range of our relationship with the Russians and the Russian Government, and how she will seek to shape that relationship, with criticism and with encouragement, to build a deeper understanding in the future.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for initiating the debate. It is a privilege to participate in a debate initiated by someone with such a distinguished career in the field of international relations.
I am aware that other speakers in the debate are taking, and will take, a wide geopolitical view of the relationships between the UK and Russia and the prospects after the recent elections. I should like to focus more narrowly, if I may, on questions which are nevertheless very important: a question of human rights and a question of reform in an area of human rights where the UK Government have played, and are playing, a supportive role.
First, I wish to echo the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and to draw your Lordships' attention to the report by Human Rights Watch published on 2nd June which highlighted more human rights abuses in Chechnya. The report describes killing, arson, rape and looting in Aldi, a suburb of Grozny, on 5th February this year by Russian not police and contract soldiers, and it calls on the Russian Government to bring those responsible to justice. The abuses reported by Human Rights Watch are appalling, and I hope that the Government will continue to make it clear to the Russian authorities that some effective action must be taken to bring those responsible to justice.
I also want to draw attention to another report. This is a report in the Moscow Times of Saturday 27th May, which states:
"The State Duma voted unanimously Friday to approve an amnesty intended to release up to 120,000 inmates from the country's overcrowded, underfunded, tuberculosis-ridden prisons".
The report says that the amnesty was approved by a vote in the Duma of 385 to nil. This is a cause for congratulation. This amnesty is greatly needed. The Russian prison situation is indeed an abuse of human rights.
Perhaps I may declare an interest. I have been involved in prison reform in Russia since 1991 in my capacity as a board member of the international non-governmental organisation Penal Reform International. I must also declare that the International Centre for Prison Studies in King's College, London, where I am a senior research fellow, is also working on prison reform in Russia. In particular, a new project is just beginning at the international centre, supported by the Department for International Development, which will create a three-year working partnership between the pre-trial prisons in Moscow and prisons in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

1215
On 12th January, I spoke in your Lordships' House on the subject of the epidemic of tuberculosis in Russian prisons. Perhaps I may allude to the facts that I presented then. It is estimated by the Russian authorities that about 96,000 of the 1 million Russian prisoners have active tuberculosis, and that between 20 per cent and 40 per cent of those have a variety of tuberculosis that is resistant to the main anti-tuberculosis drugs. This resistant strain of tuberculosis is highly contagious and responds only to a long course of drugs that are very expensive.
So, the Russian prison situation is not just a human rights issue; it is also a public health issue; and an issue of relations between our two countries since TB is highly contagious. Many thousands of prisoners leave prison every year and take their untreated or half-treated infection with them. With the growth in international travel, such diseases spread very rapidly from one country to another.
On Sunday 27th May, I visited Mattroskaya Tischina pre-trial prison in Moscow. I visited the TB section where there are hundreds of prisoners with active TB. The cells were slightly less overcrowded than the normal prison cells. In the TB section each cell holds about 20 people, sleeping in bunks in two tiers. I pay tribute to the dedicated prison medical staff I have met in Russia who work very hard, with limited resources, well beyond the call of duty. The staff claimed that their medicine supply was just adequate, and that they had the facilities to test for drug resistance and to change the drugs if resistance was found.
We also visited the normal cells, which hold more people than there are beds. Those prisoners who were allocated the day sleeping shift, while others sat on the floor, slept soundly on while a party of about 10 people crowded into their packed cell to talk to the prisoners held there. That is what that prison is like after a great improvement in the situation. The governor told us that the number of prisoners he was locking up had gone down from 6,500 to 4,500 thanks to the efforts of the government to speed up the trial process.
The TB situation is very bad, so I should like to ask the Minister in her reply to tell us how the Government's plans to help with that are taking shape; whether they are yet in operation; what is the position on the promised World Bank loan for TB control and treatment; and whether that loan will help the situation in the prisons.
Another threat is now emerging: HIV infection and AIDS. The figures are frightening. The World Health Organisation reports a massive rise in the rate of HIV infection in Russia in 1999 and its spread into cities where until that year it was completely unknown. Prisons are becoming reservoirs of HIV infection. I ask the Minister whether the Government have plans to offer help with this also so that the HIV epidemic does not reach the same proportions as that in relation to tuberculosis.
The situation in the prisons seems intractable. But against that impression, we have to set the determination of the Russian authorities to bring about change.
1216
In 1996 the Russian Federation joined the Council of Europe, and by so doing accepted that it would work to achieve European standards in its prisons. I am sure that the Council of Europe would feel that it had received great co-operation from the Russian authorities in trying to implement that enormous change.
In June 1998 the Russian Federation took another great step and transferred responsibility for the prison service from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice. It was an enormous upheaval and it is reported that it was carried out successfully.
In October 1999 Vladimir Putin, before he became president, visited Kresty prison in St Petersburg. That prison was built to hold 3,000 prisoners. At the time of his visit it was holding 10,000 prisoners. That moved him to say that action had to be taken.
In Europe there are 2 million prisoners. More than 1 million of those prisoners are in Russia. The imprisonment rate in the Russian Federation is the highest in the world, with the United States a close second. So the amnesty that passed through the Russian Parliament on 26th May was a most hopeful sign and should be warmly welcomed. There is one problem with it, however: 120,000 prisoners, including 10,000 juveniles, will be released from prison. They will be let loose, many of them destitute and with few alternatives to a return to petty crime.
Resettlement arrangements for released prisoners in Russia are patchy and in some places non-existent. I wonder therefore whether the Minister could look at the suggestion of adding to the range of issues being discussed with Russian officials the possibility of giving help with the resettlement of ex-prisoners. That is an area where UK experience is extensive and where help could be effectively given, and would, I am sure, be well received. I look forward to the Minister's response.
8.56 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Blaker on introducing this debate on this very important subject, at a time when Russia is at such an historic, critical, inevitably challenging and sometimes painful transition from 70 years of Soviet communism to a free-market based democracy.
The people of Russia have achieved a very great deal in the past decade in the establishment of democracy, economic reform and civil society. They have also had to confront many challenges to their internal and external security, most formidably from the recent Islamist terrorist-instigated wars in Chechnya and Dagestan.
Inevitably, there have been mistakes which have incurred legitimate criticism within Russia and from the international community. But a balanced appraisal is essential if Russia is to receive the support I believe it deserves and which is it is in the interests of this country to provide.
In the short time available, I will comment briefly on the political and economic aspects of Russia's achievements, with particular reference to the

1217
establishment of civil society, and on the implications of the war in Chechnya, as they have been highlighted by President Putin.
The political achievements are evident in the "New Russia" which emerged just a decade ago, which is fundamentally different from its tsarist or its communist past. An ideology-based, authoritarian society has been transformed into an open society, and the peaceful transition of presidential power by democratic elections, political pluralism, freedom of expression and a market economy, all of which are functions and touchstones of democracy, have been achieved.
As President Putin said in his inaugural speech:
"A change of power is a test for the constitutional system. It is a test for its strength. But this test we have overcome with dignity. We have proved that Russia is becoming a really democratic modern state… The way to a free society was not simple and easy… The construction of a democratic state was not simple or easy. The construction of a democratic state is far from complete, but a lot has been done".
There are still deep problems: notoriously widespread corruption; an entrenched Mafia; economic insecurity and poverty for many people, especially the elderly and the unemployed, as the stabilities of the old system are swept away. But the Duma, strengthened by last year's parliamentary elections, and a new president committed to strong leadership, with the opportunity for stable interaction between executive and legislative branches of government, now give Russia an unprecedented opportunity for legislation to address these urgent problems.
In this process, Russia needs support and understanding. The Duma and presidential elections reflect a new development in the political culture of Russia. The Duma is attaining more power and respect. Even though the presidency is very strong, it is working with the Duma; and there is growing respect throughout Russia for the legitimacy of the institutions of civil society. This is a very important development in the growth of democracy, and an encouraging indication of the emergence of a healthy political and economic system. I believe that it is cause for hope that Russia has crossed the point of no return in its transition from a cynical political communist system, trusted by no-one, to a western-style democracy with growing public trust in the legal system and the rule of law. Indeed the importance of the rule of law was appropriately highlighted by my noble friend Lord Blaker and by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
At the individual level, there are comparable signs of hope. For example, in Christian Solidarity World-wide, we are privileged to be working with the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and with Moscow city government. At their invitation, we are helping to change the policy of care for orphaned and abandoned children away from the Soviet system of incarceration in brutalising institutions to promoting foster family care. We have been profoundly impressed by the commitment, professionalism and sheer goodness of
1218
vast numbers of Russian people in implementing this fundamental reform, essential for the development of civil society.
I was particularly interested in the experiences just described by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, of positive developments in what had been an horrendous prison system, and also in the problem of tuberculosis. Merlin—Medical Emergency Relief International—with which I am working, is undertaking a major tuberculosis programme in Siberia, based in Tomsk. There are formidable problems, but there has been great progress. Merlin received international acclaim, and that was very much due to our Russian colleagues.
But too often the media have focused on the problems, presenting negative, and I believe one-sided; images of Russia, and nowhere more so than with the tragic war in Chechnya. I do not minimise the suffering of the Chechen people. Merlin, which I have already mentioned, has been deeply involved in humanitarian relief work there. But I am concerned that the situation has been inadequately presented by the media, which have tended to demonise Russia and have failed to apportion any significant blame to Chechnya. Whatever the history of Russian-Chechen relations, the situation in Chechnya in the 1990s deteriorated to widespread terrorism and anarchy, with gross violations of human rights, murders, abductions, public executions, torture and terrorist activities. Russia could not stand by.
Russia then faced a direct confrontation by an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 terrorists, including veteran Islamist jihad warriors, who had moved into Chechnya with an agenda to take over not just Chechnya, but also Dagestan and other countries in the Caucasus such as Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh and, ultimately, the Caspian oil basin.
The evidence for this analysis is available, but time does not permit me to present it this evening. However, Congressman McCullom, speaking in the US House of Representatives, summarised this evidence effectively. He said that,
"there looms an escalation in and beyond Chechnya. Spearheaded by Islamist forces, including terrorists from several Middle Eastern countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the new cycle of fighting is expected to spread into the entire region for geo-strategic reasons. The surge of Islamist terrorism is likely to serve as a catalyst for the eruption of the tension and acrimony building throughout the entire Caucasus.
Having just returned from a trip to Russia, including Chechnya, German BND Chief August Hanning reported to the Bundestag that the situation in the Caucasus had 'escalated dangerously'.… the fighting in Chechnya will not only escalate, but also spread to the fringes of the Russian Federation and to the rest of the Caucasus. Hanning is most alarmed by these prospects because the Islamist forces in Chechnya are supported and guided by the Afghan Taliban and by the globally operating terrorist bin Laden as well as by groups of Islamist mercenaries. Through these channels, Hanning found out, the Chechen forces have been provided with large quantities of modern weapons including 'Stinger-type' anti-aircraft missiles. Hanning warned the Bundestag of the dire strategic and economic ramifications for the West if the Chechnya war spread to Georgia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and the rest of the Caucasus".

1219
Congressman McCullom concludes very briefly:
"The United States must support the Russian endeavour to control the Islamist upsurge in the Caucasus before terrorism gets out of control."
I think that the world should be more appreciative of what Russia has done to contain that terrorism. Whatever critical dialogue it may be engaged in, that is a front line that Russia has held for the rest of the world. I should therefore like to ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government of this country are not in any way supporting those who are fighting against Russia in Chechnya, and I look forward with great interest to the answer to that question.
Perhaps I may conclude by urging the Government to do everything in their power to support President Putin and his colleagues as they strive to enable Russia to develop as a free, open society and to make its own distinctive contribution to the international family of democratic nations.
9.7 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I wish the Putin presidency well. Certainly, Russia is a proud nation with inestimable burdens and seemingly unsure about its position in the world. There is, however, no doubt about the importance of welcoming Russia as a working partner.
In some ways the president is a contradictory figure—proud of his Soviet values and its institutions but he has shown himself, as with Chechnya, to be ruthless, with no latitude; some would say authoritarian. He clearly has a firm view of national interests and talks of the need to preserve democratic principles, but will then stress the need to maintain stability.
Some are deeply sceptical about where a Putin presidency will take Russia, citing all manner of indicators and suggesting policies falling short of western ideals.
These are early days, but I believe we should have no illusions about with whom we shall be dealing. For all those reasons, it is absolutely right that our Prime Minister should have engaged in the manner that he did, so allowing for British interests to impact at the earliest opportunity.
Russia faces many challenges. The degree of continuing state influence and crime and corruption, together with the pace of embracing democratic principles, would inevitably further economic decline. Although I believe that there will be trappings of democracy, they will not develop into civil society. By extension to that, vital to Russian interests will be the need to attract foreign investment and economic assistance. The Minister should, I believe, impress on the president the worldwide competition for both and the need to create a conducive environment, including a commitment to the rule of law. Indicators suggest that President Putin is sensitive to IMF programmes and creditor concerns. That is helpful, particularly because his chief economic adviser is a staunch liberal.
1220
I take a special interest in CIS affairs and believe that we shall see a more coherent and assertive regional policy. Neighbouring Baltic states report a sea change in Russian policies since Putin's arrival on the national scene. In addition, Afghanistan and all that it stands for will have to be addressed. I should very much like to know whether the Prime Minister had the opportunity of discussing any form of assistance with the president in matters relating.
I am also of the view that special attention should be paid to Russian sensitivities. While presidents Clinton and Putin are to be congratulated on their recent Moscow initiatives, the proposed American missile defence system taps into Russian fears or western double-dealing. Russia could react adversely, but then again we have to address any legitimate concerns that we have while working to create an atmosphere of businesslike accommodation.
It is unclear to me who is in the sphere of influence in Moscow. To what extent are the old guard excluded and are we now dealing with a new band of post-communists? All in all, given the upcoming American elections, interesting times lie ahead.
9.11 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it is a convention of the House to thank those who introduce debates of this kind. However, my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker—
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. It is my understanding that the first person to speak after the speaker who initiates a debate can thank that speaker. That convention then extends to all contributors. I do, of course, thank the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, but I wish to stress that I meant no ill-intent by not doing so earlier.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I certainly did not intend to imply any element of criticism of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. I wished simply to say that my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, go far beyond the conventional response. I believe that both the terms in which he introduced this debate and the extraordinary quality of the contributions show how valuable it has been. I repeat that in no way did I in tend to imply a reprimand of any other Peer in the House.
Perhaps I may begin by saying that I have had the benefit of returning from Russia very recently. I serve on the board of the Moscow School of Political Studies, which each year hosts a number of seminars for Russian parliamentarians at both the national and provincial levels. I have just completed a week of attendance at a seminar held in Golitsynu, near Moscow, where many of the issues surrounding the election of President Putin and their consequences were discussed in great depth.
Two points clearly emerged from our debates at the seminar and they shadow much of what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in his contribution. First, there was the absolute determination of President Putin not to allow the break-up of Russia. Clearly he

1221
and some of those around him believe that the Chechen war was an indication of the possibility of disintegration of the Russian Federation. One might say that perhaps almost the very first principle to which President Putin is totally and absolutely committed is that there shall be no further break-up of Russia.
I think that the second commitment to which he is absolutely dedicated is that the rule of law must apply throughout the whole of the Russian Federation. Noble Lords will have noticed the appointment of seven regional super-governors, who have the power to tell the elected governors of the 89 regions of Russia what to do. It is a very striking example of the willingness of Vladimir Putin to go a very long way and to take considerable risks to re-establish the rule of law.
Having said that, however, it is important to make a qualification. Given the Russian constitution, the rule of law implies obedience to presidential decrees, which may not have been debated or approved by the Duma. To revert to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, it would therefore be perhaps a little over-optimistic to suggest that Russia is already a complete democracy. It is a country on the way to democracy. It has not yet quite achieved that.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others have said about the second war of Chechnya, I would like to report back on a few other things I found in Russia—which may or may not be correct, but which go some way to bear out what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said.
I would give no ground to anybody who suggested that the reaction of the Russian Federation to what happened in the second war of Chechnya was in any sense proportionate to the terrible things that occurred there. The concept of proportionality, that the use of force should not exceed the challenge made to a sovereign state, was certainly breached in the case of Chechnya. The methods selected by the Russian government at the time, which involved the total destruction of a large number of cities and small towns, was, at least in western eyes today, an unacceptable reaction. It would be as if we had laid flat Belfast when we first encountered the IRA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is also right to say that the challenge in Chechnya has not been properly or fairly covered by the British media. Let me give just two examples. I did not fully appreciate, and I have less knowledge than many people in the Chamber tonight, what had happened in Chechnya and I have not visited Chechnya myself. There were two things that struck me very forcefully. One was the almost casual breach of the peace agreement reached in Khasavyurt in 1996 by the then Russian government and the leaders of Chechnya: an agreement which went a very long way to concede autonomy to the Chechen Republic on domestic matters, and which was virtually thrown aside by the Chechen leaders without any serious attempt to make it work. At least, that is certainly my impression.
1222
The second thing which is worth saying, especially in the light of the extraordinary and fascinating, if very disturbing, account given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, is that in February 1999 Chechnya reintroduced the Sharia law, which carries with it public executions and mutilations as punishment for relatively minor crimes; that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, literally hundreds of people have been executed or mutilated under the Sharia law since February 1999 and, furthermore, that the introduction of Sharia law into Chechnya immediately put the Russian Federation in breach of its own commitment to the Council of Europe, which had led to the suspension of capital punishment in a country which had used capital punishment extensively. This led directly to a sense, on the part of the Russian Government, that its sovereignty was being challenged and indeed that its right to rule in the Russian Federation, including in Chechnya, was being challenged.
I do agree—let alone the attack on Dagestan, let alone the apartment bombings—that there were very strong reasons why Russian public opinion powerfully supported the government on the second war in Chechnya in a way that it had not done in the first war in Chechnya between 1993 and 1995.
I repeat, that does not excuse some of the extreme military methods used; but I believe that we need to look at a somewhat more balanced analysis of Chechnya than our own media have so far allowed us to undertake.
Let me say just a word about the economy, where there has been some improvement. There has been a rate of growth in the past year of 6.8 per cent and an expectation in the coming year of a rate of growth of about 5 per cent plus. There is also a bit of good news in that the oil and gas price increases enabled the Putin government to pay off substantial arrears of unpaid salaries of teachers, policemen and many others, and indeed unpaid pensioners. Although the plight of Russia remains extremely serious, therefore, with very large parts of the population still in poverty, there has been some alleviation of what was a grim situation.
Here, I part company slightly from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, having had the privilege of hearing Mr Illianov, the president's new economic adviser, only four days ago. Although I fully accept that he is unquestionably, in a very old-fashioned sense, a liberal, some of the propositions he has put forward under the Gref programme for virtually wiping out what remains of the social provision in Russia, frankly, disturb me greatly. This is a country in which there are already extreme inequalities. Therefore, for example, to expect most people to pay fees for education and for even the minimum health provision is, to say the least, a little disturbing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, indicated, in a globalised world one cannot shut people's ill health in on themselves. The rest of us have to encounter the consequences, quite apart from our moral commitment to doing something about it.
I turn finally to the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley,

1223
and others, with regard to Russia's foreign policy. I strongly agree with their remarks about national missile defence. When I was in Russia, I was told in so many words that the Russians would be extremely reluctant to amend the anti-ballistic missile treaty—and heaven knows, one understands that, especially in the light of Russia's willingness to ratify START II and possibly START III if it is encouraged so to do. But the other thing which, frankly, made my blood run a little cold was being told in the high levels of the National Security Council that Russia would have to consider "MIR Ving" its existing warheads if the United States were to go ahead without any compromise being reached. I am sure that Members of this House who are aware of how weakly guarded some of the warheads are, and how dangerous is the problem of deterioration over the years, share my concern about any possibility of moving towards multiple re-entry vehicles attached to those warheads.
I conclude with three brief questions to the Minister. First, is she satisfied that Russia is being given enough help to meet fully the requirements it has entered into under the Council of Europe? Secondly, will she give an assurance that NATO will not be expanded into the Baltic states without full discussion with the new Russian Government? This is undoubtedly a matter of profound concern in that country. Thirdly, does she agree that there should be an attempt as early as possible to reach a more generous trading relationship between the European Union and Russia, including exchanges of assistance and help in the kinds of fields discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. In other words, will Her Majesty's Government do their very best in the Council of Ministers to try to create closer relations between the European Union and Russia, at a time when it is obvious that the Russian Federation is extremely keen to establish closer relations with the European Union, with which it feels itself to be historically and ultimately likely to be connected?
9.23 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the timing of this debate could hardly be more appropriate and the quality has been very high. My noble friend Lord Blaker has done us all a great service in promoting it at this time. My noble friend began with a sobering, indeed staggering, statistic which we should do well to bear in mind; namely, that the gross domestic product of the Russian Federation amounts to less than 2 per cent of the GDP of the United States of America. The one is in the range of about 180 billion dollars, the other in the range of some 9 trillion dollars.
Of course, all these statistics are elastic. We have no real idea of what is going on in the Russian economy. Large parts of it are black and large parts are Mafia-controlled. I do not think anyone imagines that members of the Mafia are particularly assiduous in handing in official statistics denoting what they are up to. However, one can reach the sobering conclusion that Russia's economy is extremely poor; it is a very weak country in terms of exploiting its vast national
1224
resources, and many parts of that enormous continent are in dire straits, with people on the edge of starvation if not actually starving.
All this has been made worse, not better, by the fact that when the new dawn came and communism was overthrown, Russia was then deluged with exceptionally stupid economic advice from many sources in the West that failed to connect with the realities of the Russian people and their needs. The result has been that Russia is poorer today by far than it need have been. Certainly, the damage to the reputation of economists—that was already pretty low—has been vast, although few of them admit it. That is the first fact that I wanted to share with your Lordships this evening as we come to the end of this debate.
The second fact is a rather obvious one: we are dealing not just with a country but with a vast, disparate collection of races and nations stretching from the centre of Europe through to the Sea of Okhotsk and to the northern islands of Japan. This is something so much greater and larger than any other so-called "nation state" on earth, so we need to be careful about assuming that one can apply the rules of nation states and democratic procedures and make judgments on that basis as if Russia were like anywhere else. It is not. It is extremely difficult to control, as successive rulers of Russia have found, and the present rulers are no different.
We have heard very wide and very well informed comments from people like my noble friend Lady Cox who is familiar with what is going on in Chechnya. We know that the problem of control that the new President Vladimir Putin and his team face is more intense than ever. They are facing a very serious difficulty. It is true that the Chechen Republic used to be called a gangster republic, so they have plenty of justification for being concerned. Whether the Russians have justification for some of the methods they have used is, I think, much more doubtful. There can be no doubt that what is going on in Chechnya, and what has been going on in both wars there, is a process of erosion, rebellion, disintegration and lawlessness which has spread to Dagestan and which could develop in the other five Caucasian republics and elsewhere, which, unless checked, would mean the unravelling of the entire Russian Federation. Those who want to see the Russia of today held together—it is a strange creation: a mixture of the old European Russia and the imperial Russia of the Tsars—have to fight for their lives and for their vast extended nation to see that these rebellions are curbed.
That is the awful, grim scene that faces the rulers in Moscow. Although one does not forgive some of the hideous methods used, one does understand the position that they face, what used to be called in the days of Vietnam a "domino" effect. Perhaps it is better to call it a "ripple" effect because the domino effect turned out to be a false theory. The ripple effect is that if Chechnya goes, so other vast interests of the Russian Federation go, including the oil interests that have been rightly mentioned. The whole Russian orbit of influence in central Asia and near Asia will begin to

1225
crumble, as will the confidence and the hopes of the nation itself. That is the scene about which we must be realistic.
There have been enormous achievements and Russia is full of absolutely brilliant and dazzling people. But it is never very clear—even today, dare I say, with a new president—who is the boss of this vast and disparate area that stretches from Europe to Asia. Russia is always looking for a strong man to get a grip on things. Along comes Mr Putin, and high hopes are pinned on him. I think that he understands as well as anyone else that merely preaching democracy from Moscow or mixing with all the glitterati and the think-tanks in the various Moscow brasseries is not going to rule Russia.
For that reason Mr Putin has sent military envoys (as he calls them) with sweeping powers to get a grip on the regions and to take on some governors who otherwise would entertain warlord tendencies and think of ways to disregard Moscow's rule. Mr Putin must be very tough if he is to do this. He has used tough language and threatened the use of missiles against Afghanistan. He has issued a number of decrees in a fairly brisk manner. We shall see more of that, but it will go hand in hand with continuing tensions and difficulties not only in Chechnya but in other republics and semi-autonomous areas of the former Soviet Union. I believe that this will be a long process in which Moscow will face a constant challenge as to whether it handles these difficulties by politics and religion or, as in the case of Chechnya, by the most direct military means, which I believe to be a huge mistake.
Looking at Russia in those slightly gloomy terms, the question is: what are our interests and those of the United States and other European powers? Why does President Clinton spend time with this entity which in terms of its economic clout and importance is smaller than Belgium? The answer is obvious: Russia still has an enormous nuclear arsenal and weaponry. Beyond that, at the moment President Clinton needs something from the Russians. As my noble friend Lord Blaker aptly pointed out, the question is whether the Russians will agree to the modification of the ABM Treaty of 1972, as the Americans hope, in order to allow President Clinton to authorise the beginning of the NMD programme which must start fairly soon. That programme may not work, but it will be expensive. The view of the Americans, which I understand, is that we are moving away from the old world of mutual deterrence to a new and, if it works, potentially better world of the total neutralisation of nuclear missiles, in particular those in the hands of rogue states which believe they can hold the world to ransom.
What have we and President Clinton discovered in dealing with Mr Putin? As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, it is early days and it is difficult to see what will happen. Like many of his advisers, Mr Putin is extremely clever and agile in the world of diplomacy and politics. He has convinced a large part of the European establishment that Russia has a genuine case against the modification of the treaty; that somehow it will badly affect the Russian position and that if there are to be changes, big concessions will be
1226
required. He and his colleagues have talked of the possibility, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, of Russia having to develop its weapons. Some of Mr Putin's advisers have even talked about a new arms race. It has been hinted that there may be some sympathy from the Chinese who also dislike the whole idea of the modification of the ABM Treaty. In the past few days Mr Putin has visited Rome and said that the answer is a common missile system for the whole of Europe. That has echoes of Mr Gorbachev and the reference to the common European home. No one has said who is to pay for it, but the cost will be vast.
Mr Putin appears to have secured some big concessions from President Clinton. During his visit to this country, he also appears to have persuaded the Prime Minister and the Government that Russia has a case which should be taken into account in our talks with the Americans and that future Russian sensitivities are very important and should be considered. That is a pretty remarkable achievement by Mr Putin who has very little behind him. Russia's economy, which is minuscule, is nearly wrecked. I do not go as far as to say that it is all bluff, but the truth is that Russia lacks the money even to modify and maintain its present rocket systems. We do not even know the state of half of the missiles in its silos, and it certainly does not have the money to develop new arms systems. To that extent, Mr Putin cannot possibly carry out that aspect of his threat or negotiating stance.
We should like to know from the Minister—perhaps not tonight but later on—where the British Government stand on the NMD issue. We told Mr Putin that there are worries, but the Prime Minister also told the Americans that we shall allow Fylingdales to be upgraded. I am not sure whether one can play both ends against the middle. I believe that we should either support or not support the Americans in this matter.
My view is that the Russians have nothing to worry about in modifying the treaty. We must be positive and friendly with Russia, help it to get through the agonising difficulties that lie ahead, and open all trade routes. However, we should not fall for the old-fashioned bluster and narrow nationalism which one hears in parts of the Moscow establishment and which has no place in today's international order.
Therefore, I pay tribute to the dexterity of the Russians, their brilliant diplomacy and their ability with very few resources to achieve a great deal. However, in my view we must not be deflected by that from sensible security developments and from building as stable a post-Cold War system as possible which could lead finally to a world free of the real threat of nuclear war which characterised the Cold War years.
9.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I, too, add my voice of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for instituting this very

1227
timely debate. Perhaps I may say respectfully that the speeches from all noble Lords have been of extremely high quality. I believe that it does honour to the House when such a broad-ranging issue is debated so well.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, raised three critical issues: first, economic relations; secondly, nuclear missile defence and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and, thirdly, the concern with regard to sidelining Russia. Those issues were echoed by virtually all noble Lords who followed. They raised the need for balance and the need to respond appropriately to Russia in all her complexity.
Of course, we have a new government in Moscow. As a number of noble Lords have already said, that new government are beginning to reveal their intentions and policies. There has been significant activity in the UK/Russia relationship, with progress towards a strong and frank partnership. However, the bloody conflict in Chechnya continues to undermine Russia's progress towards democracy and respect for human rights.
Some noble Lords may have seen the speech that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, made at Chatham House last February on foreign policy and national interest. In that speech he argued that in the modern world globalisation required more bridges and fewer barriers; that the global interest was becoming the national interest; and that the global community needed universal values. Therefore, Britain had adopted a conscious policy of critical engagement with other countries: the pursuit of political dialogue wherever it can produce benefits.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary went on to argue that the biggest challenge for that policy of critical engagement was developing the right strategies to accommodate post-Soviet Russia as a willing partner in the global economy and in global security. The election of the new president, with the prospect of change in the Russian political climate, offers a significant opportunity to push forward that policy and our relations. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made a personal commitment to making that happen. This year has seen a remarkable level of bilateral contact between the UK and Russia, from the Prime Minister's two meetings with President Putin in the space of four months to the frequent contacts at Foreign Minister and senior official level. Neither side can be in much doubt about the views of the other on the key issues of the day.
As a result, there is a realism on both sides over the scale of the challenges ahead if Russia's transformation to a market economy is to be achieved and supported by the Russian population. I believe that a number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Blaker, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Howell—rightly raised the issue of how that economy can be supported and what needs to be done.
Russia faces a crushing budgetary burden—notably a welfare system which provides benefits for two-thirds of the population. It also has a huge military establishment, including 5,000 strategic nuclear
1228
warheads, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made mention. That establishment is funded by an economy smaller than that of Switzerland, a point rightly highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker.
President Putin assured the Prime Minister that he is determined to create the conditions needed to unlock confidence and investment to kick start long-term sustainable growth. We welcome that. He also said that he wants to maintain political stability and improving living standards. Those statements are encouraging, but we shall look for early action and implementation of reform in key areas. Early agreement to Part II of the tax code and to money laundering legislation would be useful steps. The advice and technical assistance that we have provided to Russia is designed to help to address those huge problems.
We echo the concern expressed by all noble Lords about the economy. Of course there are questions. Has reform started, and where is it going? We know that the jury is out on that, but the initial signs are good—the appointment of economic reformers to key ministries; co-operation with the International Monetary Fund on new programmes; and the appointment of liberal economic advisers to work on the economic reform programme. We shall have to wait for those programmes to be agreed with the International Monetary Fund and implemented, but the signs are there. The economy has started to pick up. There has been 3 per cent growth of GDP in 1999.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, raised an interesting issue as regards what was done to engage Russia before Pristina. Perhaps I may say, in response, that we need to draw attention to the role played by General Sir Michael Jackson in resolving that situation. As a result, Russia was engaged and we learnt valuable, cogent lessons which improved and enhanced our ability to work. Whatever the genesis, the result, thankfully, was positive.
I turn to the issue of NMD, which has been highlighted by a number of noble Lords. We need to recognise four issues in relation to the American position. First, they have not made a final decision as to whether or not they wish to employ NMD. There are four criteria which they will apply: first, the recognition of the threat (we now have the agreement of the Russians that there is, indeed, a threat); secondly, the technical ability to set up the system and whether it will work; thirdly, cost; and fourthly, international opinion.
As regards all those issues, other than the acknowledged threat, the jury is still out for the Americans too. Contrary to the indication given by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, they have not asked for us to upgrade Fylingdales. That request has not yet been made. We are trying to engage both sides so that each understands the anxieties and concerns of the other. We hope to enhance their opportunity to understand one another and, therefore, to come to a reasonable agreement as a way forward. We note that the ABM Treaty has been amended before, satisfactorily. We stress to both sides that it could be amended again if

1229
they so choose. We recognise that we are not parties to that treaty and therefore do not have a direct voice. However, we have an opportunity to speak, it is to be hoped with a degree of cogency and support, for a valuable solution.
There is thus a window of opportunity to engage Russia under her new presidency. The UK is determined to seize this opportunity and encourage better links with a more open and constructive Russia. The problems, though, are huge. Several noble Lords have alluded to the areas where Russia continues to pursue policies which run counter to our aims and principles.
If we are to influence Russia, we see no alternative but to discuss our disagreements openly and seek to encourage a more positive course. The prize—a Russia integrated and engaged with the rest of the international community on the basis of shared beliefs and values—would be of considerable benefit to the peace, security and stability of Europe and the wider world. I welcome all the comments made by noble Lords in appreciating that reality. It would enable us to tackle the problems that are high on the global agenda more effectively, from drugs to the environment to crime. That is very much our vision. It will not be easy, but there is much at stake and much to try for.
If I may, I shall deal briefly with some of the more specific questions raised by noble Lords, and start first with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who, in her very erudite exposition, raised the recent Human Rights Watch report on Chechnya. It makes disturbing reading and we share many of its concerns. We have repeatedly urged Russia to ensure full and transparent investigations of human rights abuses and we agree with Human Rights Watch that it is vital that Russia should resolve the details delaying the return of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's assistance group to Chechnya, and the arrival of the three Council of Europe secondees to the office of the Presidential Representative on Human Rights in Chechnya.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, also raised the serious problems of tuberculosis, HIV and AIDS. The UK is active on those issues. We are sponsoring two pilot projects in Tomsk, one of which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to tackle TB, plus a project to reduce transmission of HIV among injecting drug users. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked about the proposed World Bank loan to assist with TB-related problems in Russia. I can tell your Lordships that a 150 million dollar loan has been agreed over 10 years. That loan should be approved by the autumn of this year and disbursement will begin early in 2001.
We are also active in penal reform. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office funded a penal reform project for Russia and eastern Europe worth £250,000. It helps prisoners to share best practice, including self-sufficiency schemes, and DFID is planning a project of alternatives to imprisonment which will work in two or three pilot regions in Russia. Like the noble Baroness,
1230
we welcome the amnesty for 120,000 prisoners announced on 26th May, but are concerned that that will not fully address the problems of overcrowding and medical problems, though it does include those of TB.
Perhaps I may come to the wider arena. Britain will work hard to ensure that Russia is a key partner in the G8 and to develop relationships with NATO and the EU. But in turn we need to be able to point to evidence of Russian preparedness to work with the international community constructively on areas of shared concern—Chechnya, proliferation and the Balkans—if we are to develop the sort of partnership that we want. But we absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Blaker, Lord Ponsonby, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others that our response to the challenges with which Russia will be faced must be a balanced one. We are determined to maintain that balance. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that we will never side with terrorism or with terrorists.
Some criticised the UK engagement with Russia and President Putin as being over-hasty, given the war in Chechnya. I believe that was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. We have real disagreement with Russian policy, and its conduct in Chechnya, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, is unacceptable and produced grave humanitarian suffering. Nor, without a political settlement, will it produce Russia's stated objective of defeating terrorists. But we believe that engagement rather than isolation enables us to bring the message home to Russia. Six months ago, for instance, Russia was vehemently opposed to any international involvement in Chechnya. Since then, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the EU and others have sent senior representatives to the region. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that the commission is working on the ground. We have not yet received a report but things appear to be going well so far as we are aware.
There are many issues with which we need to engage Russia. In conclusion, perhaps I may deal with the three raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. First, she raised the matter of assistance and help that we give to Russia with the Council of Europe. We are giving full assistance. The UK assistance has been focused very much on human rights. The EU TACIS programme has been refocused since December on those issues. In relation to the NATO expansion to the Baltic States, Russia has no veto on the NATO enlargement. We made it clear that all states have the chance to apply for membership, but NATO and Russia have a full relationship in which all subjects are being discussed.
As regards our EU trading relationship, that is governed by the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, which provides opportunities for discussion on all aspects of trade, including tariffs and quotas. There is much to do with our relationship. But I welcome the positive comments made by all noble Lords and the balanced way in which they represented the challenges and the successes that we need to look for in our relationship with Russia.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Trustee Bill [H.L.]
Wednesday, 7th June 2000.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard.
The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, although that is an unlikely event today. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Existing trusts]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("this") in line 15.
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to give the new powers of investment to all existing trustees, subject to Clause 6(1)(b) which makes the new general power of investment subject to any restriction or exclusion imposed by the trust instrument or by legislation. Without this amendment there are some in the charity sector, in particular, who would be excluded from the new regime. These include those whose current powers are granted by what the published Bill called "special statutory powers of investment". That might be particular charities or non-charitable trusts governed by an enactment or by subordinate legislation, or those who belong to a class whose powers derive from legislation or who have been granted additional statutory powers. Certain classes of religious and educational charities may have such powers; and charities which are subject to schemes or orders made by the Charity Commission or the Home Secretary
CWH 2
under the Charities Act 1993. We believe that, if the restriction in the published Bill is to be dropped for charitable trusts, it should be dropped for non-charitable trusts as well.
In providing charities and other trusts with wider powers it will not be possible to predict whether or not they will be used appropriately in every case in which they will apply. But there are four factors which, we believe, make the risk acceptable; first, that trustees should have the wider powers that are proposed in the Bill; secondly, the exercise of these powers will be subject to safeguards, including the duty of care; thirdly, the application of the new powers will be subject to any restriction or exclusion in the trust instrument or any enactment; and fourthly, even where the new regime applies, it is for the trustees to determine in the particular circumstances the extent to which it is appropriate to exercise the powers conferred.
The Charity Commission would welcome the introduction of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: This is a somewhat unusual Marshalled List in view of the fact that there are 49 amendments down in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and none by anyone else. Speaking for my noble friends and myself, the Committee stage is likely to have a very easy passage today. However, I welcome the continued interest that has been taken in the Bill. I believe that we are happy to support this and all the other amendments tabled on the Marshalled List. I am tempted to suggest that the noble and learned Lord should move them en bloc but I shall not go quite as far as that.
Lord Wilberforce: Perhaps I may acid to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said. The fact that other amendments have not been put down by other Members of the Committee does not reflect any sentiment that the Bill is trivial or not to be carefully considered. I am very grateful for the consultation that we have had from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to which I have given very careful thought. Although I am unhappy about some of the provisions in the Bill, on the whole I feel it best that the Bill should go forward and one should not try to delay it by making changes which would, if made at all, have to be somewhat radical. I entirely go along with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in wishing the best of progress to the Committee.
Lord Kingsland: I wholly concur with the remarks made by noble and learned Lords who have already spoken.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to both noble Lords and to the noble and learned Lord. There is all-party agreement. There is also support around the House more broadly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, indicated, to deliver a beneficial Law Commission Bill of this character with all deliberate speed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power to acquire freehold and leasehold land]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may trespass on the patience of the Committee simply to say one thing. Although the clause has not been amended, concern has been expressed about whether the words "for any other reason" in Clause 8(1)(c) are wide enough to include the purchase of functional land by charitable trusts for carrying out the purposes of the charity, rather than as an investment; for example, a school buying land to serve as a playing field. For the avoidance of doubt—I do not believe that there is doubt—let me confirm that we intend the words in the clause to comprehend that meaning.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Existing trusts]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 10, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
("(1) This Part does not apply in relation to—

(a) a trust of property which consists of or includes land which (despite section 2 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) is settled land, or

(b) a trust to which the Universities and College Estates Act 1925 applies.").

The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, as was the last, is to expand the numbers of trusts that can benefit from the new regimes being set up by the Bill, in this case by giving new powers of land acquisition to all existing trustees, subject to Clause 9(b). I shall not weary the Committee by repeating the argument in detail but will repeat that the Charity Commission would welcome the introduction of the amendment.
Settled land and the bodies subject to the Universities and College Estates Act 1925 are subject to their own specific regimes in relation to the matters covered by Part III of the Bill—the purchase of land. The remainder of the amendment allows those well-understood regimes to continue to operate as they now do. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Power to employ agents]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("acquired") and insert ("held").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is the avoidance of doubt. It ensures that, however a charitable trust comes by land, if it is held as an investment, the trustees may delegate their power of managing, or creating or disposing of an interest in it. This will ensure that in cases where land has been bequeathed to a charity, for example, and is then regarded as an investment, it will not be excluded from the scheme because it was not strictly "acquired" as an investment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Persons who may act as agents]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 29, at end insert ("(even if the beneficiary is also a trustee)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment answers concerns raised from a number of quarters about Clause 12 of the Bill as published. Although as published subsection (1) read with subsection (3) was thought to cover the point, the amendment to subsection (3) makes it abundantly clear that a beneficiary may not be appointed as an agent even if he or she were to be a trustee.
It is possible for trustees to delegate any of their trusts, powers or discretions to a beneficiary under the trust, but not under the power conferred by Clause 11 of the Bill. It can be done only under Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925, as substituted by the Trustee Delegation Act 1999, but the safeguards are very much greater. The delegation has to be made by each trustee by power of attorney. It is restricted to a maximum period of one year and the trustees are strictly liable for the faults of the delegate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power to appoint nominees]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 2, after ("determine") insert ("(other than settled land)").
The noble and learned Lord said: By Section 4(2) of the Settled Land Act 1925, the legal estate in settled land is to be held by the tenant for life or the statutory owner. Thus the legal estate can never properly be held by the trustees of the settlement qua trustees and although it seems that there are good reasons why it should be possible for land, held on a trust of land, to be vested in a nominee, there are no obvious reasons why a nominee would be needed in relation to settled land.
This amendment, therefore, will provide that the power to appoint nominees does not apply to settled land. However, it should still be possible for the proceeds of sale of settled land to be vested in a nominee, as this may be advantageous for the purposes of investment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 6, at end insert ("or in relation to any assets vested in the official custodian for charities").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 9. I take them together because they each have the same effect in their respective clauses.
Presently, Clauses 16(3), 17(4)and 18(4) disapply the power to appoint nominees in the case of any trust having a custodian trustee, because the power conferred by the clauses is incompatible with the statutory duties of a custodian trustee under the Public

CWH 5
Trustee Act 1906. The Charity Commission has made the point that trustees should also be deprived of the powers under Clauses 16 and 17 in relation to property which is for the time being vested in the official custodian for charities. This is because Section 22 of the Charities Act 1993 provides that where property is vested in the official custodian in trust for a charity he shall have the same powers, duties and liabilities as a corporation-appointed custodian trustee under Section 4 of the Public Trustee Act 1906. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for a nominee or custodian to be appointed under the Bill in respect of the relevant property. In addition, where bearer securities are held by the official custodian, there should be no duty to appoint a custodian under Clause 18 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 17 [Power to appoint custodians]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 14, at end insert ("or in relation to any assets vested in the official custodian for charities").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Investment in bearer securities]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 17, after ("instrument") insert ("or any enactment or provision of subordinate legislation").
The noble and learned Lord said: With your Lordships' leave I shall speak also to Amendments 11, 12, 23, 26 and 27, with which Amendment No. 8 is grouped. Each of these six amendments has a similar effect in its respective clause.
The amendment to Clause 18(2) ensures that the exception to the requirement in Clause 18(1) to appoint a custodian of bearer securities applies where there is a legislative provision for the trustees to hold or invest in bearer securities without the need to so appoint, as well as applying where there is such a provision in a trust instrument which applies also where the provision is in legislation.
Clause 21 refers to the requirement to review the appointment of agents, nominees and custodians and the extent of the trustees' liability for such appointments under Clause 22 and 23. The amendment to Clause 21(2) ensures that the duty under Clause 21(1) which applies, as the clause is presently drafted, to appointments made under a power granted by a trust instrument, applies also to powers granted in legislation. The amendment to Clause 21(3) ensures that, where the exception to the application of Clauses 22 and 23 arises from inconsistency with a trust instrument, inconsistency with legislation would attract the same exception.
Clause 30 refers to the remuneration of charitable trustees and the amendment to Clause 30(2) adds to the classes of those who may benefit from orders made by the Secretary of State under Clause 30(1), those
CWH 6
who have been authorised to exercise functions as agent, nominee or custodian by a trust instrument, those so authorised by legislation. The clause already makes provision for those so authorised by legislation, by the Bill or by the trust instrument.
Clause 31 deals with trustees' expenses, and the amendment will ensure that it will apply to those who derive their powers to act as agents, nominee or custodian from legislation as well as those who derive their power from the Bill or the trust instrument.
Clause 32 deals with remuneration of agents, nominees and custodians, and the amendment has the same effect as does that affecting Clause 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7, line 21, at end insert ("or in relation to any securities vested in the official custodian for charities").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Persons who may be appointed as nominees or custodians]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 10
Page 7, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) the person is a body corporate recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is another amendment for the avoidance of doubt. It should be possible to be appointed as a nominee or custodian under the Bill only if the proposed appointee is in the business of providing nominee or custodianship services. Subsection (2)(b) is included in the draft in order to cater for the possibility that trustees might wish to set up special purpose vehicles in order to act as their nominees.
However, concern was expressed as to whether the clause as drafted was sufficiently wide to enable trustees to utilise the services of solicitors' nominee companies, which are recognised under rules prepared by the Law Society under Section 9 of the Administration or Justice Act 1985. Where such companies in England and Wales are owned by solicitors, they can only function as recognised bodies within the Solicitors' Incorporated Practice Rules. Therefore we believe that solicitors' nominee companies should be suitable for appointment as nominees or custodians under the Bill and that the clause should be wide enough to allow for this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Application of sections 22 and 23]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:
Page 8, line 28, at end insert ("or by any enactment or any provision of subordinate legislation").
Page 8, line 32, after ("instrument") insert ("or the enactment o r provision of subordinate legislation").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Trustee's entitlement to payment under trust instrument]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 8, leave out ("Subsections (2) and") and insert ("Except to the extent (if any) to which the trust instrument makes inconsistent provision, subsections (2) to").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15, with which it has been grouped. These two amendments are designed to tidy up a small drafting point which might otherwise have led to ambiguity. In effect, Clause 28(1)(c) from the published Bill has been moved to the head of the clause to make it clear that the various parts of Clause 28 should apply unless and to the extent, but only to the extent, that the trust instrument provides to the contrary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 10, at end insert ("to or").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20, 28 and 29, with which Amendment No. 14 is grouped. I propose to take these amendments together as each acts on its clause in a similar way. In each case the amendment contemplates the provision of services by trustees inwards as well as outwards in relation to a trust. Thus, it is possible to imagine, for instance, a group of financial trusts, one of which might be a trust whose function it was to provide services to connected trusts. The trustee would be the person through whom the service was provided "to" the trust.
Clause 28 relates to trustees' entitlements to be paid under the terms of a trust instrument. Clause 29 relates to entitlement to remuneration. Clause 32 relates to the remuneration of agents, nominees and custodians and Clause 33 relates to the application of the clauses I have previously mentioned. In each case, the amendment has the same result. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 13, leave out from ("capacity") to end of line 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellorhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16:
Page 10, line 18, at end insert—
("(2A) Subsection (2) applies to a trustee of a charitable trust who is not a trust corporation only—

(a) if he is not a sole trustee, and

(b) to the extent that each other trustee has agreed that it should apply to him.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I make a change and do not move the amendment. The amendment appears to be defective to the extent that it applies more stringent rules of conduct to charitable trustees than apply in the remainder of trust law. That was an unintended consequence of attempting to arrive at a suitable amendment following discussions with the
CWH 8
noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and with the Charity Commission. Good as well as evil comes out of discussions with the noble Lord, but mea culpa, I shall provide noble Lords with what I expect to be the right amendment at Report stage.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 10, line 32, at end insert—
("and the services he provides to or on behalf of the trust fall within that description.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment clarifies the purpose of this clause of the Bill. The clause makes provision for the payment of trustees under the terms of the trust's instruments, among other things, if they are acting in a professional capacity. Clause 28(4) defines what is a professional capacity for this purpose and that definition is in terms of the provision of types of services. The amendment makes it clear that the trustee will be entitled to remuneration only for the provision of services which are of the type described. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I express gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for this and other amendments to Clause 28. I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say that Amendment No. 16, which he did not move, will be brought back when reviewed. I believe that I am correct in saying that.
The Lord Chancellor: Having failed in the first instance, I shall endeavour to bring back an amendment at Report stage which will command your Lordships' assent because it gets the matter right.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Remuneration of certain trustees]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 18 to 20:
Page 10, line 40, after ("provides") insert ("to or").
Page 11, line 4, after ("provides") insert ("to or").
Page 11, line 8, after ("services") insert ("to or").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 11, line 8, at end insert ("and for the purposes of subsection (1) includes, in relation to the provision of services by a trustee who is an authorised institution under the Banking Act 1987 and provides the services in that capacity, the institution's reasonable charges for the provision of such services").
The noble and learned Lord said: If a bank providing trust services as a trust corporation within the Trustee Act 1925 also provides banking services, it will need express authority to charge for doing so, as otherwise there would be a technical breach of trust. Without that authority, the bank would have to use a competitor to provide the banking services, which would be a little odd. Of course, where a bank is appointed as a trustee in the trust instrument, that authority will be provided. Otherwise, this amendment now makes it clear that a trust corporation which is a recognised provider of banking services may make any

CHW 9
reasonable charges for the provision of such services in the course of, or incidental to, the performance of its functions as a trustee. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I hesitate to raise what is a technical drafting point but hope that it will be helpful. The subsection to be amended by Amendment No. 21, starts, "'Reasonable remuneration' means".
The amendment reads,
"and for the purposes of subsection (1) includes".
It could read,
"reasonable remuneration for the purposes of subsection (1) includes, in relation to"
and so on.
It is not a question to which I could reasonably expect the Lord Chancellor to respond today, but I want to raise with him the question whether the word "includes" is meant to be different from the word means" as used at the start of the subsection. If so, what is the difference intended to be? I am sure that it is an issue to be discussed outside this room, but it seems to me a germane point.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall write to the noble Lord with regard to his question whether the word "includes" implies a broader extension than the word "means".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
4 p.m.
Clause 30 [Remuneration of trustees of charitable trusts]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 11, line 21, at end insert ("who are trust corporations or act in a professional capacity").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has been made at the suggestion of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It was concerned that the clause as published seemed not to restrict the remuneration of charitable trustees, should it become possible in due course, to trust corporations and those acting in a professional capacity, in line with the policy in Clause 29.
It was thought that the clause as drafted restricted the application of the remuneration of charitable trustees to corporations and professionals, but the committee saw an ambiguity and I was content for the amendment to be made to make the restriction fair. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: As a member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, I welcome the agreement of the noble and learned Lord to amend the clause in this way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 11, line 24, after ("or") insert ("any other enactment or any provision of subordinate legislation, or by").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 11, line 32, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 33 and insert (",but no such instrument shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment arose from discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who was concerned that as significant a proposal as to allow the remuneration of charitable trustees should have the widest possible public airing. He was of the view that we should allow Clause 30 to remain in the Bill, rather than take it out and have to wait for a future legislative opportunity should opinion in due course be behind such a move. I agree with him, and the appropriate method of dealing in future with so significant a potential change should be by the affirmative resolution process. This amendment achieves that. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's acceptance of that point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Trustees 'expenses]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 11, line 34, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) A trustee—

(a) is entitled to be reimbursed from the trust funds, or

(b) may pay out of the trust funds,

expenses properly incurred by him when acting on behalf of the trust.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment tidies up the drafting of Clause 31 and makes provision for a trustee to be reimbursed or paid directly from the trust's funds expenses properly incurred by him when acting on behalf of the trust. It also adds the provision to pay out of the funds and makes it clear that such transactions apply only to expenses incurred personally. I believe that meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, at Second Reading. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I am again grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. This point was originally brought to my attention by a colleague at the Chancery Bar, Mr Lynton Tucker. It seemed to me that there was something in the point he raised, and I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having taken it on board.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 11, line 37, after ("or") insert ("any other enactment or any provision of subordinate legislation, or by").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Remuneration and expenses of agents, nominees and custodians]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 12, line 1, after ("or") insert ("any other enactment or any provision of subordinate legislation, or by").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 12, line 10, after ("him") insert ("to or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Application]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 12, line 16, after ("provided") insert ("to or on behalf of,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Common investment schemes for charities etc.]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 14, line 28, at end insert (", or having effect as if made,").
The noble and learned Lord said: With Amendment No. 30 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32. These amendments make it clear that common investment schemes made before the relevant sections of the Charities Act 1993 came into force are also exempted from the operation of this Bill. These are schemes set up under Sections 22 and 22A of the Charities Act 1960. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 14, line 29, after ("1993,") insert ("other than such a fund the trusts of which provide that property is not to be transferred to the fund except by or on behalf of a charity the trustees of which arc the trustees appointed to manage the fund,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment brings within the ambit of the Bill those schemes set up under Section 24 of the Charities Act 1993 known as pooling schemes, by which groups of small charities may consolidate their investments. These schemes often have no explicit powers of investment and thus the Charity Commission was of the view that there would be an advantage to bringing them within the new scheme. The words added by this amendment achieve this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 14, line 30, at end insert (", or having effect as if made,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 15, line 5, at end insert—
(""settled land" has the same meaning as in the Settled Land Act 1925;").
CWH 12
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment merely adds the definition of settled land to Clause 39, which is the interpretation clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 43 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Application of duty of care]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 17, line 6, leave out from ("or") to end of line 7 and insert ("any other power of investment, however conferred:").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 34, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 38 and 40, which have been grouped together. Each has the same effect in its place in Schedule 1. In each case, it ensures that the duty of care provided for in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill applies to the exercise of the trustees' powers regardless of the origin of the powers. As published, the schedule referred only to powers derived from the trust instrument. However, that overlooked the fact that trustees may derive relevant powers from other sources such as orders of the court, orders and schemes made by the Charity Commission and from legislation. That being so and the policy that the duty of care should apply to the exercise of all relevant powers, unless specifically excluded by a trust instrument, the amended wording so applies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 17, line 14, leave out from ("any") to end of line 15 and insert ("other power to acquire land, however conferred:").
Page 17, line 26, leave out ("power conferred by the trust instrument") and insert ("other power, however conferred").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 17, line 37, at end insert—
("Compounding of liabilities
The duty of care applies to a trustee—

(a) when exercising the power under section 15 of the Trustee Act 1925 to do any of the things referred to in that section;

(b) when exercising any corresponding power, however conferred.").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is made for the sake of consistency. As the Bill repeals Section 23 of the Trustee Act 1925, with its concept of good faith, and replaces it with the powers in the Bill to appoint agents, nominees and custodians, to which, of course, the duty of care applies, we have thought it sensible, for the sake of consistency, to apply the duty to Section 15 of the Act which also gives a power to trustees but, at present, relies on a test of good faith. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 38:
Page 17, line 42, leave out ("conferred on him by the trust instrument") and insert (", however conferred").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 17, line 43, at end insert
("Reversionary interests, valuations and audit
The duty of care applies to a trustee—

(a) when exercising the power under section 22(1) or (3) of the Trustee Act 192.5 to do any of the things referred to there;

(b) when exercising any corresponding power, however conferred.").

The noble and learned Lord said: As with Amendment No. 37, this amendment is also made for the sake of consistency. As I said in speaking to the previous amendment, as the Bill repeals Section 23 of the Trustee Act, with its concept of good faith, this amendment applies the duty of care in an analogous way to Section 22(1) and (3) of the Act, which also gives a power to trustees but, at present, relies on a test of good faith. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 18, line 2, leave out ("to powers conferred by a trust instrument").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Goodhart: I should like to make a brief intervention. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will, of course, recall, I was very concerned with one of the provisions of Schedule 1; namely, paragraph 5 which allows the possibility of excluding the duty of care that is proposed in Part I of the Bill. At Second Reading on 14th April the noble and learned Lord gave an undertaking that he would shortly make a formal reference to the commission asking it to carry out an appropriate study with its customary thoroughness. That was, of course, in reference to the question of objection clauses.
I am not making any complaint that no reference has yet been made. I realise that this is not the most urgent and important matter on the Lord Chancellor's desk, but I should be grateful for some indication of what "shortly" means in this case, because I would be somewhat concerned if we were to find this matter dragging on past the Summer Recess.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I can give the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the assurance that he seeks. The last thing I would desire to do is to have this matter drag on. In fact, we thought that the appropriate course—I apologise for not drawing this to the attention of the noble Lord—was to await the outcome of the Lords status of the Bill before inviting noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to whom I specifically address these undertakings, to express their views on
CWH 14
the precise form of the references to be made. We will take their views fully into account in ma king the references.
The Law Commission also is aware informally of what is intended, and is awaiting formal references. My ambition is to achieve this comfortably before the Summer Recess.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 19, line 3, at end insert—
("The Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1893 (c. 20)
The 1893 Act is hereby repealed.").
The noble and learned Lord said: With your Lordships' leave, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 42, 46 and 49.
I begin with an apology. I am very aware that on Second Reading I undertook to give seven days' notice of government amendments. That, of course, was in the spirit in which we have conducted this Bill, and in fact the bulk of those before your Lordships this afternoon were tabled on 24th May. However, these four amendments appear starred on the Marshalled List and were tabled only on Monday last, so I am formally in breach of the undertaking and I trust your Lordships will forgive me.
These amendments insert back into Schedules 2 and 4 the four items which were removed from the Law Commission draft of the Bill when it was printed and introduced into the House at First Reading. The reason was that it had not been possible at the time to obtain both the consents required from Her Majesty and from the Prince of Wales in their rights of their Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall respectively. These consents are now to hand and these amendments, therefore, replace the removed items. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 42:
Page 19, line 3, at end insert—
("The Duchy of Lancaster Act 1920 (c. 51)
In section 1 (extension of powers of investment of funds of Duchy of Lancaster) for "in any of the investments specified in paragraph (a) of section one of the Trustees Act 1893 and any enactment amending or extending that paragraph" substitute "under the general power of investment in section 3 of the Trustee Act 2000 (as restricted by sections 4 and 5 of that Act)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 43:
Page 21, line 12, at end insert—
(" . In section 15 (power to compound liabilities), for "in good faith" substitute "if he has or they have discharged the duty of care set out in section 1( ) of the Trustee Act 2000".").

CWH 15
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment achieves the purpose I mentioned when moving Amendment No. 37, in order to replace the concept of good faith in Section 15 of the Trustee Act 1925 with the duty of care imposed by this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 44:
Page 21, line 13, at end insert—
In section 22 (reversionary interests, valuations, and audit)—

(a) in subsection (1), for "in good faith" substitute "if they have discharged the duty of care set out in section 1(1) of the Trustee Act 2000". and

(b) in subsection (3), omit "in good faith" and at the end insert "if the trustees have discharged the duty of care set out in section 1(1) of the Trustee Act 2000".").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment achieves a purpose very similar to the previous amendment. This time it achieves the purpose I mentioned when moving Amendment No. 39, in order to replace the concept in Section 22 of the Trustee Act 1925 of good faith with the duty of care imposed by this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 21, line 18, at end insert—
("The Land Registration Act 1925 (c. 21)
In section 94(1) (registered land subject to a trust to be registered in the names of the trustees), at the end insert "or in the name of a nominee appointed under section 16 of the Trustee Act 2000".").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 16 of the Bill gives powers to trustees to appoint nominees to act in relation to such trust property as they determine, and requires, at Clause 16(1)(b), that such assets are vested in the person so appointed. This does not sit well with Section 94(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925 which requires land which is subject to a trust of land to be registered in the name of the trustees. This amendment makes it possible for such land to be registered in the name of a nominee appointed under Clause 16. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 23, line 38, at end insert—
("The Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982 (c. 47)
For section 1 (powers of investment of Duchy property) substitute—
"Powers of investment of Duchy property.
1. The power of investment conferred by the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863 includes power to invest in any investments in which trustees may invest under the general power of investment in section 3 of the Trustee Act 2000 (as restricted by sections 4 and 5 of that Act)."
In—

(a) section 6(3) (Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts extended in relation to banking), and

(b) section 11(2) (collective citation of Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts),

for "Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1868 to 1893" substitute "Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1863 to 1868".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 47:
Page 24, line 5, at end insert ("of that section").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment simply tidies up drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 48:
Page 24, line 6, after ("(8)") insert ("of that section").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the amendment on the same basis. This amendment, too, simply tidies up drafting.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 49:
Page 27, line 37, at beginning insert—

("1893 c. 20.

The Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1893.

The whole Act.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-four minutes past four o'clock.

  Wind Farms: Capacity
  Wind Farms: Capacity
  Timber Products: Dumping
  Timber Products: Dumping
  Railtrack (Waverley Station) Order Confirmation Bill
  Railtrack (Waverley Station) Order Confirmation Bill
  Millennium Dome: Funding Requirements
  Millennium Dome: Funding Requirements
  Millennium Dome Additional Funding: Direction
  Millennium Dome Additional Funding: Direction
  Financial Services and Markets Bill: Amendments
  Financial Services and Markets Bill: Amendments
  Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee
  Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee
  Development Council, 18 May
  Development Council, 18 May
  Salmon Netting
  Salmon Netting
  GM Seed Planting Distances
  GM Seed Planting Distances
  IACS Payments
  IACS Payments
  Freedom of Information Bill: Amendments
  Freedom of Information Bill: Amendments
  HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary: Report on Specialist Operations
  HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary: Report on Specialist Operations
  Firearms Act 1968: Issue of Permits under Section 7(1)
  Firearms Act 1968: Issue of Permits under Section 7(1)
  Law of Disclosure
  Law of Disclosure
  Offenders Serving Community Sentences: Return to Court
  Offenders Serving Community Sentences: Return to Court
  Export of Human Tissues
  Export of Human Tissues
  Medicines: Prescription by Pharmacists
  Medicines: Prescription by Pharmacists
  Dietary Supplements: Proposed Directive
  Dietary Supplements: Proposed Directive