Sitting of 20 June 2000

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

  CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL (LORDS] [BY ORDER)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 27 June.

  GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 27 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Central Southern Africa
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When he next plans to meet leaders of central southern African countries; and if he will make a statement. [125204]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in Feira attending an important meeting of the European Council and has asked for his apologies to be given to the House.
    Tonight, I will be flying to South Africa to attend a meeting of the World Economic Forum in Durban, where I expect to meet leaders from other central and southern African countries. I visited Zambia in May. I will visit Mauritius on the way home and Angola in early July.
    Mr. Winterton: I fully accept the reason why the Foreign Secretary is not able to be here and am delighted to learn that the Minister of State is flying to South Africa later today. What discussions has he had with states in central southern Africa about the desperate situation in Zimbabwe and about the presidential elections in particular, which are imminent? What views have the central southern African states put forward? Does he agree that it is essential that the Opposition party in Zimbabwe, the Movement for Democratic Change, has an opportunity for free and fair elections?
    Does the Minister further agree that the only way in which that wonderful country, which has such tremendous potential, can make progress is if all the peoples who comprise the population of Zimbabwe—black, white and
    136
    others—can work together to ensure a prosperous future for the country? People are desperately concerned about the elections. Can we have an assurance that they will be free and fair?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with all the hon. Gentleman's points and acknowledge his long-standing interest in the region. We have had detailed discussions with all the African leaders, who share our concerns about the desperate situation in Zimbabwe.
    The whole world has been appalled by the violence and terror unleashed by the Government of Zimbabwe. Britain has repeatedly urged that the people of Zimbabwe have the right to make their choice freely and fairly, but we will not pre-empt the verdict of international observers. Indeed, the leader of the Opposition there has said that to do so would be irresponsible. Only President Mugabe can end the intimidation by instructing those responsible for it. He owes it to his country to ensure that the election results reflect the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Although clearly we cannot pre-determine what the election monitors will be able to say about the elections in Zimbabwe, is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient observers have been allowed to go to Zimbabwe to look at the parliamentary elections this weekend, and that a full report will be able to be made available in the House and throughout the country as soon as those elections have been held?
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is crucial to the fairness and freeness of the elections—the presence of observers from foreign countries. There are now more than 300; we would have liked more. Obstructions are still being put in their way. It is still not clear whether the 20,000-plus internal monitors will be able to get access to the polling stations, to inspect the registers and to carry out their duties. All those matters will need to be followed carefully and closely; indeed, we are doing that.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister agree that we should not be surprised about allegations of obstruction and intimidation in relation to the monitors? Indeed, the surprise would be if there were no such allegations in the light of the events of the past few months.
    Is it not the case that those of us who are concerned about the future of Zimbabwe have to put our trust in the courage and determination of the people of that country to choose their own Government? Finally, if ZANU-PF were to win the election, how could Zimbabwe remain a member of the Commonwealth? What price the Harare declaration if the Government in Harare simply ignore it?
    Mr. Hain: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important case. I agree with much, if not all, of it. It is vital, first, that the people of Zimbabwe are able to determine their own destiny in choosing whichever party they vote for; and, secondly, that the policies adopted after the elections by whatever Government take

    137
    office take the country forward, rather than continue to send it down the drain, as unfortunately has been happening in recent times.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: In the light of the previous question, does my hon. Friend agree that, if President Mugabe, in defiance of democracy, continues to allow his supporters to act in a way that subverts the democratic process and, at the end of the elections, ignores the results given by a people who will speak for themselves—the outcome is not for us to determine—the Commonwealth will have to send a strong signal throughout the Commonwealth and, in particular, to democrats in Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) mentioned, that the Commonwealth has taken a close interest in Zimbabwe's future. The Harare declaration is very clear on all those matters. The Commonwealth ministerial action group, having considered the crisis in Zimbabwe, will no doubt have to consider what happens after the elections. We await the outcome of the elections to determine what the Commonwealth should or should not do.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Is it not already transparently clear that the elections cannot be free and fair, and that the only way in which ZANU can win them is through the wholesale rigging, gerrymandering and intimidation that we have already seen? The only light in this dark period of that young country's life has been the raw bravery and undimmed determination of those Zimbabweans, both in the MDC and more widely, who simply refuse to see their country stolen from them.
    Is not the overwhelming need now for the international community to make it clear that if Mr. Mugabe insists in clinging to a position that he has now defiled, he will become an international pariah, unwelcome to travel abroad; his regime, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, suspended from the Commonwealth; aid to his regime stopped; and his own stolen overseas assets seized? Would not anything less be a betrayal of those very brave people who are fighting for their country?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the situation in recent months has been extremely serious, and I acknowledge the fact that, some months ago, he visited the country to see that for himself. It is very important that, with the elections only days away, we choose our words very carefully, and that, as he said, the people of Zimbabwe have the courage and determination to go to polling stations and choose whom they want to vote for, freely and fairly. We support them in their right to choose their own Government without intimidation, without violence and without the terror and all the other things that have occurred in the past few months and made the situation so desperate for that country.

    Sri Lanka
    Mr. David Taylor: If he will make a statement on the conflict in Sri Lanka. [125205]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We are deeply concerned about the tragic situation in Sri Lanka, particularly the events in the Jaffna peninsula, and the danger to the civilian population. We call upon the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE to cease hostilities and begin negotiations immediately. We fully support Norway's efforts to facilitate peace talks.
    Mr. Taylor: But, as a power with some historic responsibility and influence in that region, are we doing enough? Tens of thousands of Tamils and Sinhalese have been slaughtered with European weapons. Does the Minister agree that the controls on the munitions merchants who are dealing death in Sri Lanka are woefully weak? Should there not be an international arms embargo to prevent that tragic conflict turning into a bloodbath? Is that not an ethical foreign policy?
    Mr. Hain: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. The bloodshed and violence are appalling, and they are fuelled by the arms coming into the country. Of course, Sri Lanka has an elected Government who have a right to defend themselves. We shall review our own policy on arms exports, as we are doing, case by case, to determine whether it complies with our very clear criteria that those exports should not be used for either international oppression or external aggression.
    The real priority, however, is to begin negotiations between the Government and the opposition LTTE. We are working tirelessly—with the Norwegians, with the Indians and with others—to achieve that, and we shall continue to do so.
    Finally, Madam Speaker, may I acknowledge your own close interest in the island, which is much appreciated by the people of Sri Lanka?
    Mr. John Bercow: What assessment has the Minister of State made of the alleged link between the International Federation of Tamils, in the United Kingdom, and the so-called Liberation Tigers, in Sri Lanka?
    Mr. Hain: We are aware of the activities of various representatives of the rebels in Sri Lanka, and of course we take a close interest in those activities to ensure that they conform with British law. We shall continue to monitor the situation.
    Mr. Andrew Love: As the Minister has already mentioned, Norway and the United States are playing a role in trying to facilitate talks between the two sides in the conflict. What more can the Government do to end 17 years of civil war in Sri Lanka, which is estimated to have resulted in more than 70,000 deaths, and help to ensure that that country is now on the road to peace?
    Mr. Hain: It is one of the unresolved regional conflicts that must now have the world's immediate attention to achieve the engagement necessary to promote negotiations and, ultimately, a lasting peace. My view is that the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka must be respected, but so must the rights of the Tamil community. Some form of autonomy, in the form of devolved government and perhaps with greater powers than have

    139
    been proposed by the President and her Government so far, may be the way forward. Meaningful negotiations should be instituted immediately following a cessation of hostilities to achieve that objective.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of Tamils live with the Sinhalese in the south of the country, and the solution that he has just suggested is therefore rather strange? Does he agree that one cannot be evenhanded in a situation in which the Government of Sri Lanka have constantly offered deals to people in the north and called ceasefires, only to have them broken by suicide bombings? It is difficult for the British simply to say, "Let's be evenhanded between the two sides."
    Mr. Hain: It is not a question of being evenhanded. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the elected Government in Sri Lanka, and we respect them and have an excellent relationship with them. However, with many such problems, as we have seen on our doorstep in Northern Ireland, in the end one needs to pursue negotiations and achieve compromises to promote an ultimate peace. It is not for Britain to specify what that peace settlement would look like, nor to specify any form of devolution or autonomy that might result, and I was not doing so.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Syria on the middle east peace process. [125206]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the peace process with Dr. Bashar al-Assad in the margins of President Assad's funeral in Damascus last week. I myself discussed it with the Syrian Government during a visit to Damascus last month, and remain hopeful about the prospects for peace.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given that Israel has now withdrawn from Lebanon, does my hon. Friend agree that if the Syrians could be persuaded to withdraw wholly or partially from the area it would achieve two things? First, it would achieve the unity of Lebanon and, secondly, it would give a shot in the arm to the peace process in the middle east.
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a strong case and there should, of course, be no foreign armies in any country. That was the problem with the Israeli occupation over so many years. Nevertheless, I remain optimistic as a result of my discussions with Dr. Bashar al-Assad and with the Foreign Minister in Damascus last month. If negotiations can be resumed, there is a real prospect of a peace settlement with Israel that would no doubt include the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon. The major priority is to get the negotiations over the Golan going as soon as possible.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Would not one contribution towards the building of trust between Syria and Israel be for the new Syrian regime to clear up the mystery of its long-term sheltering of the architect of
    140
    the holocaust in wartime France, Aloïs Brunner, in Damascus? Will the Government make representations to the Syrian regime that would indicate to it that it cannot expect to be taken seriously in the search for peace as long as a war criminal of that magnitude is sheltered in Damascus?
    Mr. Hain: I shall certainly look into that matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. The Government have a clear record on the issue of the holocaust and that is why we declared a national holocaust day, the first one of which will be next year.
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: Now that Israel has left southern Lebanon and we have a new generation of leadership in Syria, will my hon. Friend do everything in his power to make it clear to the Lebanese and Syrian Governments that they should prevent Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations from launching terrorist attacks on the northern towns and cities of Israel?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, indeed, and I raised precisely those points with Foreign Minister Shara when I was in Damascus last month. It is also important, now that the UN has declared the international boundary a clear boundary and has said that Israel has withdrawn back across that border, that everybody respects the peace process and that the Lebanese Government also engage constructively with the United Nations to make sure that that peace settlement sticks as a result of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Given the clearly expressed desire of Bashar al-Assad to bring new technologies to his country, and given the new leadership that is now in place in Syria, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will seek to be at the forefront of any help in liberalising Syria's currently command-focused economy?
    Mr. Hain: Yes. This is proving to be a consensual Question Time so far, although I do not hold out too much hope for the remainder of it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, my discussions with Dr. Bashar al-Assad revealed a Syrian leader—although his father was still alive and still President then—with a lot of vision and a modern outlook. He knows Britain well and he knows the global culture well. He is well placed to lead Syria forward, not just in respect of information technology and deregulation and liberalisation of the economy, but, indeed, the modernisation of the economy that is so desperately needed, and to take an active part in the peace process and allow Syria to come into the international family of nations as a respected partner, rather than display a hostility to that international family, as it has in the past.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. David Crausby: What recent discussions he has had with his opposite numbers in EU member states and applicant countries concerning the enlargement of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [125207]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed enlargement of the EU with his opposite numbers from the EU member states at the Feira European Council yesterday and today. They agreed that enlargement is essential if we are to spread peace, stability and shared values throughout the European Union. Britain is a strong advocate of a swift and successful enlargement of the EU. Both I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also frequently discuss enlargement with our counterparts from applicant countries. Since taking up my appointment, I have met most of the Foreign Ministers and chief negotiators from the applicant countries.
    Mr. Crausby: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Specifically, has Turkey made any real progress towards the Copenhagen political criteria? How realistic are the prospects of Turkey ever becoming a full member of the European Union?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not very good, after last night.
    Mr. Vaz: As my hon. Friend will know, we are keen to have Turkey in the European Union, no matter what its football team does. We feel it is important, as we confirmed at Helsinki, that it should be a member of the European Union, but, of course, the process of membership is, as my hon. Friend has suggested, very tough. Turkey will have to take part in the various accession agreements, prepare itself, meet the Copenhagen criteria and go through all the necessary negotiations and discussions that will be expected. I shall not put a date on Turkey's membership of the European Union. That is a matter for Turkey and the negotiations that are going on at this very moment.
    Mr. John Redwood: Does the Minister agree that there is absolutely no need to give Brussels new powers of taxation as a prelude to enlargement? Will he take this opportunity to say that Her Majesty's Government would regard any continuing attempt by the Commission and other member states to include these very wide-ranging powers that they are seeking in the treaty as an obstacle to enlargement and a cause of delay? Will he rule out the need for any new powers of taxation for Brussels in the new treaty? Does he understand that it is no use the Prime Minister returning to the House saying that he has a settlement on the withholding tax if he grants Brussels more powers in the treaty of Nice which would allow it to introduce it by the back door?
    Mr. Vaz: What a sad person the right hon. Gentleman is! I am sure that he would like to join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the work that he has done at Feira. He will know that the tax package has now been agreed. Six months ago, the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members criticised the Government for being isolated on the withholding tax. I am pleased to tell the House that agreement has now been reached because of the negotiating skills of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Therefore, the proposal to impose the withholding tax on the City has been defeated. All the other EU countries supported the line taken by my right
    142
    hon. Friends the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, which is that there should be an exchange of information.
    The Government's position on tax and the treaty is clear. We will not give up our veto on tax. We will make it clear that we will act on taxation policies in the way we have always acted—that is, that we will take a hard-headed look at what is in Britain's national interest. Tax remains one of the core issues that we will not give up on.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Has my hon. Friend met any Foreign Minister from anywhere in Europe who believes that it is possible to enlarge the European Union without changes in the decision-making process and in the size of the Commission? If no such view exists, why does he believe that the Leader of the Opposition is calling for a referendum on matters such as the reweighting of votes in favour of larger nations such as Britain, which manifestly is in this country's interests?
    Mr. Vaz: Of course, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary can only dream about going to European Council meetings, whereas my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary are there at this moment. They support enlargement because it is in Britain's interests. We will have a single market of 500 million people. I am sorry that the official Opposition's policy is that they would have vetoed the intergovernmental conference and the treaty of Nice. I should have thought that they would have supported enlargement and the entry of Poland, Hungary and the other applicant countries into the European Union.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: With reference to enlargement, do the Minister's contacts, especially those with the Governments of eastern European countries, persuade him that those countries are making enormous efforts to meet the target dates proposed by the European Union? is the Minister confident that all other European Union member countries are as enthusiastic as Britain is about being able to reciprocate? Is he adhering to target dates of entry?
    Mr. Vaz: The negotiations are going extremely well. One of the reports received by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at yesterday's Council meeting was on the enlargement process. We believe that it is for the applicant countries to set their timetables in relation to the negotiations. For the Luxembourg Six countries, for example, only two chapters of the acquis remain to be opened, so progress is on-going.
    It would be wrong for us to set an artificial timetable and deadline that we know would not be met, although we in the European Union must be ready with our timetable. That has been set by the IGC, and I am very pleased at the progress made yesterday and today. We are on target to complete the discussions and negotiations during the French presidency. We are confident that we can complete them by 31 December this year, and that as a result we will be ready to receive new members at the end of 2002. It will then be up to other countries to decide the target date for entry that is suitable for them.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Does the Minister sense, as others have sensed and as the right hon. Member

    143
    for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) just suggested, a cooling of enthusiasm for early enlargement among current EU member states? Would it not be a scandal if the European Union failed in its high duty to embrace the whole family of European nations? Given that the single biggest roadblock to successful enlargement negotiations is a common agricultural policy that is morally, socially, economically, financially and environmentally indefensible, why did the Government not spend their time at the Feira summit seeking changes to give more control to member states, instead of trailing sadly behind the Commission's plans to create a single European super-state?
    Mr. Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman has a cheek. When he was Minister at the Foreign Office, he gladly went along with the common agricultural policy, but now that he is in opposition he wants to change it. We have made our position on the CAP clear, which is that it needs to be reformed. If he read the Foreign Office website, he would know that the Luxembourg Six opened their discussions on the agriculture chapter last Wednesday. Those discussions will be the subject of tough negotiations, and we will follow their progress. The truth is that the Conservative party changes its policy every week. Last week at the Dispatch Box, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative party would veto the IGC and therefore stop enlargement. Is that still the case?

    Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What discussions he has had with his US and Russian counterparts following the conclusion of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference. [125208]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We continue to maintain close contact with both the United States and Russian Governments on nuclear non-proliferation issues.
    Mr. Savidge: I congratulate my hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government on the role that they played in the success of that conference. May I urge the Government to work together with other nuclear weapons states to fulfil the spirit and the letter of the obligations entered into there, particularly on the test ban and anti-ballistic missile treaties and on progress with nuclear disarmament?
    Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that Britain played a pivotal role in achieving a successful outcome to the non-proliferation treaty conference. We did so because after my speech in New York, I had discussions with the new agenda coalition—in particular the Irish, the New Zealanders and the South Africans—to say that we would work with the P5 nuclear states to try to achieve a common position. For the first time, an absolutely unequivocal declaration was given by the five nuclear states, Britain included, to work for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and for progress on all the other issues to which my hon. Friend referred,
    144
    including, crucially, the comprehensive test ban treaty and the fissile material cut-off treaty; and we will work vigorously to achieve entry into force of both treaties.
    Sir David Madel: What is the Government's current attitude towards the United States national missile defence programme?
    Mr. Hain: The Government's stance has been well stated. We are waiting to see what proposals the United States has for national missile defence and then we will make a judgment. I was, however, encouraged by the discussions between Presidents Clinton and Putin in Russia only a few weeks ago in which they agreed to discuss this matter and see whether they could find common ground. It is vital that whatever is done, the anti-ballistic missile treaty is not damaged but kept alive and in force, and that Russia and the United States continue to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and to co-operate, whether NMD—which is an untested, unproven system—develops or not.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister agree that while welcoming any Russian initiatives to bring about nuclear disarmament, we do not support Russia's plans to re-use plutonium taken from warheads to make so-called MOX nuclear fuel? Does the Minister agree that that would be both dangerous and environmentally damaging?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's long and close expert interest in this matter. We remain very concerned about the use to which nuclear material is put in Russia, because a huge amount of it is available. It is important to world peace that the use of such material is properly monitored and regulated.
    Mr. Francis Maude: The Minister knows that on national missile defence, the American Administration have made an informal request to know what the Government's position will be on upgrading the radar tracking facilities at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill. The House will want to know what the Government's response to that has been to enable the United States to deploy NMD if it decides to do so. Will the Government arrange to have an early debate in the House on this issue, which is of huge importance and comparable with the deployment of cruise missiles in the 1980s? The House will be keen to know on which side of the debate Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament members such as the Minister will be.
    Mr. Hain: I remain on the Government's side of the debate. Indeed, I speak for the Government on these matters, and am doing so at present. As for the Government's attitude to national missile defence and any proposal that has not come in any specified form from the Americans so far, the difference between us and the Conservatives is that they will say yes to anything, even before they know what it is. The system has not been tested; it is vulnerable to decoys and all sorts of other technological devices. I urge the Conservative party to be cautious here. If and when the Americans decide to proceed with the system, we will consider it.
    As I have said, we shall urge negotiations with the Russians to achieve consensus. How can we adopt an

    145
    attitude, as the Conservative Opposition have done, to a system and a policy that are not at all clear, and on which the Americans have made no decision?

    UN Security Council Membership
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What estimate he has made of the time scale for the permanent membership of the UN Security Council to be changed to include a country from south Asia. [125209]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Britain continues to press actively for early enlargement of the UN Security Council to include permanent seats for countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as well as for Germany and Japan.
    Mr. Prentice: That is good news; the UN should be reconfigured to reflect the realities of the modern world. There are those who believe that India is a strong contender for permanent membership of the Security Council. Will my hon. Friend make it clear that there can be no question of countries joining the Security Council as permanent members when they are in default, if that is the word, of UN resolutions? They must come into full compliance before they can even begin to be considered.
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is right. As the second largest nation in Asia, India is a strong contender for any enlarged Security Council. It is ultimately a decision for the Asian group, and not one in which Britain will have the final say. Many matters will be taken into account when the decision is made, including those to which my hon. Friend referred. Other countries in Asia, including Indonesia and Pakistan, for example, will also put their names forward and make strong claims, and India's claim is undoubtedly strong.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What is the Government's criterion for qualifying for permanent membership of the UN Security Council? Is it a country's population, its geographical position or its compliance with UN resolutions? Surely the Government must have some view about their role in putting forward the case for new countries becoming permanent members of the Security Council.
    Mr. Hain: We have a very clear view, and we are leading the discussion in New York on enlargement of the Security Council. The present Security Council reflects a world that is long gone. It needs to be modernised and updated, and that is a policy that we are pursuing.
    Our policy is to have five new permanent members—Japan, Germany, one from Asia, one from Latin America and one from Africa. There will also be four new non-permanent members, one from Latin America, one from Asia, one from Africa and one from eastern Europe. That is a clear policy, which would result in a Security Council that reflected the realities of the modern world.

    Pakistan
    Fiona Mactaggart: If he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Pakistan. [125210]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Britain has close and long-standing ties with Pakistan and we continue to urge General Musharraf to produce a complete timetable for the transition to democracy.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that members of the settled Pakistani communities in Britain, who had high hopes of a Labour Government, are concerned about the issue that was raised on the previous question, and feel that the legitimate concerns of Pakistan are being ignored as a result of our pressure that Pakistan, rightly, should move swiftly towards democracy? Does my hon. Friend agree that if they feel like that, and Pakistan feels isolated, that represents a real threat to peace in south Asia?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that a Pakistan that feels isolated, embattled and beleaguered could find itself reacting accordingly, and that would be dangerous. I welcome the opportunity to place on the record the fact that we value our strong and historic friendship with the people of Pakistan. That friendship continues, although we rightly condemned the coup last year—there is no such thing as a good coup. Nevertheless, we want to see Pakistan develop, succeed and returned to democratic rule, and we will work with the Pakistani people and their representatives to achieve that, as we are now doing.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: When General Musharraf considers the franchise, would it not be appropriate for him to move towards a single electoral list for the restoration of democracy in his country? In that case, minorities such as Christians, Hindus, Ahmedis and Parsees may get a fair deal. Will Her Majesty's Government press for an early lifting of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, which cause great offence to minorities and are often an incitement to violence against them?
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend—[Interruption]—I mean, the hon. Gentleman; this consensus has gone too far. The hon. Gentleman raises important points, with which I agree, about minorities in Pakistan. We shall press for the lifting of the blasphemy laws—indeed, we already have—and we shall consider the proposals for a new electoral registration system. On that and other matters, we have offered the Pakistani regime co-operation to help eradicate corruption from the judiciary, and to modernise its system of government and the civil service, which has also been deeply corrupt and inefficient. Offers of assistance have been made, and we hope that they will be taken up. We genuinely want Pakistan and its people to succeed.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: The future of Kashmir is a burning issue for many Pakistanis in my constituency, and the vast majority believe that the Kashmiris should decide their own fate. Should we not use the United Nations to promote a plebiscite before we discuss whether there should be new UN representation?
    Mr. Hain: As I have said, the issue of an enlarged Security Council is quite different from matters that may

    147
    or may not be occurring in Pakistan or India, even if those matters might influence the Asian group's decision about its representative. That is a matter for the Asian group, not Britain, to decide.
    The crisis in Kashmir continues, and we remain actively engaged in seeking to resolve it. We want India and Pakistan to resume the Lahore process, which resulted from the courageous decision of the Indian Prime Minister to travel to Lahore. The discussions provided a breakthrough, and it is unfortunate that the subsequent Kargil incident in Kashmir—the author of which was General Musharraf—has, along with last year's coup, set the process back. We continue to urge both Delhi and Islamabad to get together to resolve the matter. It cannot continue as a festering sore, threatening stability in the region and the human rights of those in the area concerned.

    Eritrea
    Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the situation in Eritrea. [125211]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Since May 1998, Eritrea and Ethiopia—two of the world's poorest countries—have been engaged in a senseless and tragic war that has caused an appalling number of casualties. We welcome the proposal for an agreement on the cessation of hostilities, recently brokered by the Organisation of African Unity in Algiers, and we shall work to support its early implementation.
    Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for that response. Everyone hopes that the agreement will succeed. Does he agree that the main issue is policing the buffer zone? Are 2,000 peacekeepers enough? Is he aware of any European Union country having offered troops, and if so, how many? Is he aware of any contingency plans made by the UN in case the conflict resumes, causing the peacekeepers to be withdrawn?
    Mr. Hain: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked serious questions about the problems in the Horn of Africa, which has been desperately hit by drought and other problems. The war must end. The United Nations is actively engaged in seeking to promote peace and stabilise the region, and Britain is working closely with the UN and supporting the Organisation of African Unity's proposals and the efforts to ensure that Ethiopia and Eritrea never again enter into that pointless war.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend ask the Department for International Development to make it clear that one condition for aid must be that it is not provided to countries waging war on their neighbours?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made it clear that she would not enter into a strong bilateral aid and
    148
    development programme while war was being waged and with no guarantee that resources from Britain would not, at least indirectly, continue that war.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If it is right to withhold aid from Ethiopia in case the money is squandered in Eritrea, why is it wrong to withhold aid from Zimbabwe, where we spend $27 million, much of it squandered on Mr. Mugabe's revolting private war in the Congo?
    Mr. Hain: British aid to Zimbabwe is used, for example, to tackle the huge problem of HIV and AIDS. None of it is spent in the Congo. We have strongly condemned President Mugabe's strategy of using aid for that purpose, which is entirely wrong and has resulted in a British arms embargo. Britain is supplying £9 million worth of food aid to Ethiopia and Eritrea—the second largest contribution after that of the United States—and that will continue. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that victims of AIDS in Zimbabwe, or victims of starvation in Ethiopia, should be denied aid—or is that a new Conservative policy?

    St. Helena
    Mr. Bob Russell: What plans he has to visit the island of St. Helena to mark the 500th anniversary of its discovery. [125212]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): Regrettably—I am tempted to say—I have no current plans to visit St. Helena.
    Hon. Members: Why not?
    Mr. Russell: I invite the Minister to think again. I am advised that no Minister has ever visited St. Helena, and that the party on 21 May 2002 will be a good one. Does the Minister agree that the Government should be represented—and that it would be even better to deliver the news that citizenship had been restored?
    Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman chairs the all-party St. Helena group—I understand that he takes an interest because St. Helena is the patron saint of his constituency. However, it takes about seven days by boat to get to St. Helena, and seven days to get back. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray."] I will not volunteer to be sent; indeed, I am not so presumptuous as to book now for a passage in May 2002. We are co-operating in supporting the celebrations. The Foreign Office is contributing towards a new museum and national archive that will be completed in time for the anniversary, and I know that that is welcomed.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: I am sure the Minister knows that one famous person who went to St. Helena never returned. I have a suspicion that that person was poisoned by the people looking after him—but I am sure that the food has improved greatly since then. I am certain that St. Helena and many other British dependent territories are awaiting publication of a Bill to give them UK citizenship. When will such a Bill appear?
    Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. Under the British Nationality Act 1981, most St. Helenians are

    149
    British dependent territories citizens, but they believe that they have a special claim to British citizenship. Preparations for an overseas territories Bill are well advanced, and we hope to make a slot available in the legislative timetable as soon as possible. Such legislation would affect all overseas territories—there are no special circumstances affecting St. Helena that would justify a separate Bill. We are working energetically on the legislation, and will meet all our commitments to the overseas territories.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I was about to suggest that the Minister should take the boat journey to St. Helena, so as to understand something of the sense of remoteness that the people of that island feel. But as it is not the wish of the House to give the Minister a prolonged holiday, what steps are the Government taking to minimise St. Helena's isolation and improve its communications?
    Mr. Battle: St. Helena is remote, and access is mainly through passing ships that call in. There have been problems with its economic restructuring, but as a result of the efforts of both Governments, employment projects—by encouraging people to come here—have helped to reduce unemployment in St. Helena. We keep in close touch through our high commission, and get to St. Helena when we can. If any hon. Members would like to visit the island, we will happily make sure that they have a safe passage.

    BBC World Service
    Miss Anne Begg: If he will make a statement on his Department's support for the BBC World Service. [125213]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The BBC World Service has the full support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Objectives for the World Service are agreed between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the World Service, and progress is regularly reviewed. Funding for the World Service is via a grant in aid from the FCO. There are close and frequent contacts between my Department and the World Service at all levels—and I am assured that one can hear the World Service even in St. Helena.
    Miss Begg: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the World Service now has its own internet service, BBC Online. That site is proving very popular, and since January last year its use has tripled to 24 million page impressions a month. Will he assure me that funding will be available so that that valuable service can continue to grow, and continue to be the most popular audio news service on the internet in the world?
    Mr. Vaz: I assure my hon. Friend that the World Service has many influential friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I know that the Ministers responsible have had frequent meetings with Mr. Byford and his staff. Of course we shall do all that we can to support their work. As my hon. Friend knows, when the matter was last considered in 1998, the World Service received an additional £44.2 million for its £177 million
    150
    budget. She also knows that 151 million people a week listen to the World Service, and more are getting involved in it because of internet access. I assure her that we are very sympathetic to what she has said.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: With friends like the Foreign Office, who needs enemies? I might say:
    how short-sighted it is to cut the funding of one of the greatest assets of Britain, which should be one of the best investments that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could make in foreign relations.—[Official Report, 10 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 203.]
    Those are not my words, but the words of the current Foreign Secretary when he complained about World Service funding in January 1996. Will the Minister therefore explain why, under the Labour Government, funding for the World Service has been cut so that it is worth less in real terms than the funding in 1996 when the Foreign Secretary criticised the Conservative Government? Is not that abysmal situation for our World Service yet another example of the Government saying one thing and doing another?
    Mr. Vaz: I am sorry that the hon. Lady prepared her question before she heard my answer. I am sure that she listened carefully to what I said, but in case she did not, I repeat that in 1998 there was an increase of £44.2 million in the World Service budget for the following three financial years—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady stops talking and listens for one moment, she will realise that that was an increase, not a decrease. We fully support the World Service and will consider sympathetically all the requests that it makes—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady might listen to the answer.
    Mr. Vaz: I think that the hon. Lady is preparing her question for the next Foreign Office Question Time, but she is doing it a bit early. If she listened to Ministers' answers, it would help her enormously.

    Plan Colombia
    Ms Rosie Winterton: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Plan Colombia; and what assistance Her Majesty's Government are giving to it. [125214]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office hosted a meeting on Monday 19 June to help to examine ways in which the international community can help the Colombian Government to take forward the difficult peace process, and we invited non-governmental organisations to participate and give a presentation at the meeting. The meeting paid particular attention to the need to improve human rights and the rule of law, to prevent further degradation of the environment and to combat illegal drugs production and trafficking.
    Ms Winterton: Will my hon. Friend indicate exactly how Plan Colombia will help the Colombian Government in their fight against the drug barons, who are funding the activities of guerrillas and paramilitaries? What are the

    151
    United Kingdom Government doing to encourage other countries to assist the Colombian Government in their battle against the drug barons and the activities that go with them?
    Mr. Battle: Our purpose is to address not only drug trafficking but the whole social and economic development of Colombia, which is what President Pastrana requested when he visited in April. I ought to make it plain that no assistance has been given by any EU member state or ourselves under Plan Colombia, and no pledges have been given. We shall discuss a range of proposals with EU countries and others at a conference in Madrid on 6 and 7 July. However, as everyone present on Monday agreed, our purpose is to address the fact that there may be a window of opportunity for the international community to support the peace process as a whole.
    We are especially interested in specific social and economic proposals, which means that we must examine how any plan gives strong emphasis to supporting human rights in Colombia and pays clear attention to the issue of paramilitaries, sending strong messages about impunity, kidnapping, and collusion between armed forces and paramilitaries. There is also a need to ensure that the economic and social development of Colombia works for the ordinary poor people of Colombia in the long term. That is our aim and the purpose of the process, which we have taken the initiative to push further forward. It will be a long-term process, and we hope that it will continue and be sustained in Madrid with our partners.
    Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister will be aware of many well-sourced allegations of collusion between the Colombian military and the paramilitary forces that are killing civilians, including those at peace communities such as Apartado. Does the Minister agree that it would be appalling if any assistance from the UK to the Colombian Government under Plan Colombia were to be given via the Colombian military—perhaps in spite of the wishes of the Colombian Government—who might then be found to be assisting the paramilitaries in carrying out civilian killings? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will make the matter a priority in their negotiations, and will seek to extract guarantees that such events will not happen?
    Mr. Battle: The answer is yes. Amnesty International and others have recorded some 24,000 murders in Colombia, so the level of violence is intimidating and, frankly, incredible. We have made it plain that we should support the efforts of the Colombian Government to get a grip on paramilitaries. I want to emphasise the fact that the purpose of the discussions is to suggest that in returning to decent civilian administration, Colombia needs to engage rather more at ground floor level. Indeed, we have encouraged it to engage with NGOs locally.
    The Colombians present at yesterday's meeting took on board both those messages. Certainly, Colombia needs to get to grips with the paramilitaries and involve NGOs in
    152
    the future development of any plans, as it is vital that NGOs' interests in the design and implementation of those plans are now brought to the forefront.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister saying that Plan Colombia and support from other EU countries was not covered at the summit in Portugal today? Will he assist the House by telling us what plans there are to find alternative agricultural crops for Colombians to harvest?
    Mr. Battle: I gather that the matter was mentioned at the margins of the Portugal summit. However, a conference in Madrid has already been arranged for 6 and 7 July to discuss what is broadly described as Plan Colombia. We are trying to see how to extend support for that plan and ensure that is clearly focused on the alleviation of poverty, as well as other social and economic objectives.
    In response to the hon. Lady's question, I would add that we need to consider appropriate development of alternative crops. In the past, unsavoury alternatives were suggested in some cases. That is not the way forward, and we must consider crops that enable ordinary farmers to earn a just living, to go to market and to feel that they are not blighting the world. Sadly, most of the cocaine that gets on to the streets of Britain's towns and cities comes from Colombia, and it is in everyone's interest to come up with alternatives and make them work.
    Mr. Paul Goggins: In my hon. Friend's discussions on Plan Colombia, will he continue to argue that it should be centred on the protection of human rights, and should not simply become a US-led military strategy?
    Mr. Battle: I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has visited Colombia and takes a great interest in such matters. We look forward to his continuing contribution to our conversations and discussions, and I completely concur with his comment.

    China (Human Rights)
    Mr. Norman Baker: What recent assessment he has made of his policy of constructive engagement with China in terms of human rights, with particular reference to Tibet. [125215]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The bilateral human rights dialogue with China enables us to discuss in depth and critically a wide range of human rights issues, with particular emphasis on Tibet. We continue to press the Chinese to allow greater freedoms in Tibet, and to engage in a dialogue with the Tibetan people, including the Dalai Lama, on a long-term political and peaceful solution there. We welcome the small steps towards opening up Tibet; we have recently persuaded the Chinese to accept the visit of the all-party group on Tibet.
    Mr. Baker: That all sounds very grand, but has not the Foreign Office policy been an abject failure? While the Chinese have been signing lots of bits of paper, the human rights situation in Tibet has deteriorated markedly.

    153
    The Chinese Government calculate that trade is more important to the UK and other western countries than are human rights, which can be jettisoned. Will human rights be a consideration when the World Trade Organisation makes a decision on China's entry? Will the Foreign Office provide funds to support the all-party group's visit to Tibet?
    Mr. Battle: I make it plain that it is not, and never has been, Foreign Office practice to supply funding for visits made by all-party country groups. Our conversations with the Chinese have had some impact; for example, we have now arranged for the Foreign Secretary's death penalty
    154
    panel to consider the abolition of the death penalty in China, and now have to determine only the date of the panel's visit. We persuaded the Chinese to allow the all-party group to visit, and it is up to those involved to make the arrangements. We managed to get them to co-operate with the International Committee of the Red Cross on prison visiting.
    Progress is pitifully slow. Only this morning, I invited Ambassador Ma to my office to make another representation on a human rights case. We shall certainly not be fearful of making such representations, but it is better to engage so that we can make them, rather than facing a shut door.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have the Government indicated to you whether they will be responding to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) for a statement on the fate of Major Andrew Harrison? Following his release from capture and torture, he is still in an area controlled by rebels in Sierra Leone and, as our troops withdraw, the House will want to know of his fate.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that any Minister is seeking to make a statement or to make any response today. The hon. Gentleman knows that if a statement is to be made, it is usually on the Annunciator by lunchtime.

Subscription Television (Prevention of Monopoly Sports Broadcasts)
3.32 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent providers of subscription broadcast services from acquiring sole rights to live broadcast of sporting events.
Why is Sky television prepared to pay £1.1 billion for three years' broadcast rights of premier league football? Why has Sky made a joint arrangement with the BBC for rights to FA cup matches and England internationals for three years which is worth £345 million? The answer is, of course, terribly simple: it wants to be a monopoly supplier of live football to British fans. Soccer fans have nowhere else to go. Like sports fans everywhere, they are prepared to pay large sums to watch their sporting heroes. Sky's sporting package now costs over £300 a year—three times the licence fee.
I know how irrational soccer fans can be because I am just as irrational in making decisions about how much money I am prepared to spend to watch cricket. It may be that English cricket, soccer and rugby fans are a breed apart. We will still be coming back for more, however England performs. The sad fact is that Sky knows that and is earning a fortune from the monopoly position that the House is enabling it to enjoy. The time has come to protect the interests of the consumer who is at the mercy of a monopoly supplier.
As I have implied, I have an interest to declare. I am a consumer of Sky's sporting package, and the Bill was prompted by that personal experience. It seemed to me, when dealing with Sky to establish or repair the service, that the arrangements were wholly inflexible and designed to suit its interests, and not mine. Sky gave appointment days rather than times for engineers, and made dates to suit its schedule, rather than mine—and that was after waiting ages on the telephone and in addition to the unfailing ability of the service to collapse when one really wanted to watch it.
It is clear that I am not alone. The Scottish Sunday Mail consumer affairs columnist wrote in April:
If I had to nominate the worst company in Scotland for customer service, the dubious honour would go to Sky Television. By a mile.
He recounts tales of people being overcharged, the Sky digital system not working, technical bungles and lamentable customer service, and complaints about delayed installations, engineers not turning up on agreed dates, extra installation fees and mistaken disconnections.
One correspondent successfully arranged to have the engineer turn up on her day off work. She said:
We waited all day. When I phoned Sky, they told me it had all been cancelled but couldn't tell me why. Surely this is no way to treat new customers? I would like to be connected because they still have my £80. But after six months, I don't know what will happen.
Surely, she could take her custom elsewhere—but, in effect, she cannot. The product—live English cricket, premier league soccer, live home rugby internationals—is Sky's, and Sky's alone. It can be obtained via ONdigital, but the price will be the same or higher than that charged to Sky's customers. However, people should not expect Sky to tell them that, even in response to a direct question when they telephone Sky's customer services.

157
Millions of British people have proved to be such enthusiastic sports fans that they will pay the subscriptions to watch those events live. Sky alone has 8.6 million subscribers, and the number is rising fast. That represents subscription income of about £3 billion a year. Our legislation has put fans at the mercy of a monopoly. That monopoly has the potential to exploit the interest and enthusiasm of those fans for its own gain. Without competition, the monopoly is exercising its power, as shown in the price that it demands and the often rotten customer service that it delivers.
The Bill is a vehicle to protect consumers from exploitation. It is a limited measure, in which it is acknowledged that a variety of interests have to be balanced. The owners of the rights to the sports have a right to try to maximise their income. There is a national interest in ensuring access to such great sporting events as part of the glue of common experience that holds a nation together. There is also a national interest in ensuring that sporting opportunities are developed for all. Incidentally, the owners of the sporting rights believe that the voluntary code of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which involves investing at least 5 per cent. of the revenue from the broadcasting rights into grass roots sports, discharges that responsibility—but I do not; that target is feeble.
The viewers also have interests, which were acknowledged when the Broadcasting Act 1996 was considered in Committee. The then Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, lain Sproat, said:
it is no use saying, "We completely disregard viewers' interests. We shall allow whoever has the most money to buy up all the sports and to show them to the 18 per cent. of people who have cable or satellite." A balance has to be struck.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 June 1996; c. 564.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) took a leading role in trying to protect viewers' interests then, and I am grateful to him for his support in this effort to improve their lot. I am delighted that he and hon. Members from both sides of the House agree that we got the balance wrong in 1996.
The revolutionary rise of satellite, cable and digital multi-channel television has brought exciting opportunities. Benefits have already flowed from the competition between terrestrial broadcasters and the satellite broadcaster. There has been a substantial increase in sports coverage in terms of transmission time, the type of sport and the variety and quality of coverage, but the deck is now stacked heavily against the terrestrial broadcasters and the pockets of the viewing public.
158
My Bill would build on the framework of the 1996 Act; it would add another dimension of competition, which would protect viewers' interests and further enhance the quality of coverage. It would do that by abolishing monopoly rights to broadcast listed events by subscription broadcasters. It would introduce horizontal competition in the broadcasting of those events, as well as vertical competition to secure rights to broadcast them live.
My Bill would ensure that unless a category A broadcaster—that is, those channels to which access is universal and free—has the rights to broadcast a listed event live, at least two different subscription broadcasters must have the rights to broadcast the major listed sporting events live. Those paying subscription charges for satellite television have the right to expect some competition and to have at least some ability to shop around for the leading sporting events.
Cricket test matches, the cricket world cup, the open golf championship, the Ryder cup, non-finals play at Wimbledon, the rugby world cup, the six nations rugby tournament—which involves the home countries—the Commonwealth games and the world athletics championships could all be prised from terrestrial live transmission and placed with a monopoly subscription supplier, yet they are already listed as events meriting access for the wider public.
English football is the biggest television sport on the planet and the premiership is at its heart. I believe that premiership football should be subject to the competition and choice that my Bill would provide, so I would like that popular championship to be added to the group B list. However, under the Bill, that would remain a matter for the Secretary of State. All that the Bill seeks to achieve is a choice for enthusiastic sports viewers. It is time to protect the public from a monopoly supplier.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Andrew Reed, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Tony Wright.

SUBSCRIPTION TELEVISION (PREVENTION OF MONOPOLY SPORTS BROADCASTS)
Mr. Crispin Blunt accordingly presented a Bill to prevent providers of subscription broadcast services from acquiring sole rights to live broadcast of sporting events: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 144].
Opposition Day
[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Football Hooliganism
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.42 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns unreservedly the actions of hooligans purporting to support the England football team at the Euro 2000 championships; hopes that there will be no repetition of these actions and that UEFA's threat to expel the England team from the tournament will not be acted upon; notes that UEFA and others have criticised the Government's lack of action to tackle football hooliganism; further notes that proposals to stop unconvicted hooligans from travelling to international matches were brought forward by Opposition honourable Members during proceedings on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 but were not taken up by the Government, despite the Minister for Sport's statement that such powers were necessary; calls on the Home Secretary to explain the inaction and delay that has characterised the Government's approach, despite the undertakings given by Ministers to bring forward their own proposals; and calls on the Government urgently to take the action it has promised for two years to tackle the problem of the thugs who are a disgrace to this country's proud footballing tradition.
  Members on both sides of the House will deplore the violence that has been seen on the streets of Brussels and of Charleroi over the past few days. The hooligan element—who may describe themselves as football fans, but are nothing of the sort—are a disgrace to this country. They have brought shame to it and to our national game. They have, very sadly indeed, detracted from the magnificent win that our team managed against Germany, which we hope to see repeated on many occasions.
  I pay tribute to our team, who have played their boldest and their best, and to our law enforcement agencies, including the police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and those in Belgium and the Netherlands who have worked so hard to ensure that the scenes that we witnessed did not deteriorate into something worse. I also pay tribute to the work of the Football Association and the England coach, Kevin Keegan. They have rightly called on the hooligans to back the efforts made by the team on the field of play and to cease their actions off it. We must all hope that the scenes witnessed last week are not repeated, either tonight or in coming days, and that UEFA's threat to expel the so very well performing England team from the tournament is not acted on.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the right hon. Lady noticed that for England's games, the Belgian police prepared for a riot and allowed the sale of double strength beer whereas the Dutch police prepared for a party with pop music and half-strength beer, and by encouraging the use of a drug that has a calming effect? The expectations of both police forces were fulfilled. Should not the Belgian police take a leaf out of the Dutch book?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am not sure whether we have heard the genuine voice of the Labour party; I suspect that
  160
  Labour Front Benchers would probably say not. I shall refer to beer later on, but shall not comment on those other matters.
  During a debate in June 1998, after the violence in the world cup, the Home Secretary said:
  Last Monday, I spoke to Mr. Chevenement to apologise on behalf of the British Government and people for the events in Marseilles. We are committed to doing whatever we can to ensure that such disgraceful scenes are not repeated in future soccer tournaments.— [Official Report, 22 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 720.]
  Yesterday, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister spoke of their deep apologies to the people of Belgium, and promised action to reinforce our determination to stamp out hooliganism overseas. Those words were worryingly familiar.
  Two years separated those statements and those events. During that time, nothing has been done to effect the Home Secretary's promises. Yesterday, in his statement to the House, the Home Secretary showed the muddle that he had got into. It is not surprising that he is in a muddle. He cannot even agree with his junior Minister on the best policy.
  Yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House—this may interest the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)—that he hoped that the Belgian authorities
  will follow the lead of the Dutch authorities. Alcohol was not banned in the Netherlands, but regulations were laid down requiring the sale only of very low-strength alcohol. That seems to have worked satisfactorily.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 43.]
  Will the Home Secretary clarify the Government's policy? Last month, Lord Bassam, who is responsible for the matter, called for a complete ban on the sale of alcohol in Euro 2000 host cities. He said that he did not want beer-fuelled fighting on the streets. Is Government policy in favour of a complete ban, or is it that alcohol should not be banned? The policy is unclear.
  What has been happening the past two years is even less clear. There is an enormous difference between the Government's rhetoric and their actions. In view of specific statements by the Home Secretary in the past few days, it is worth putting on record the course that the debate has taken in the past two years.
  First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). He had the foresight to raise the matter of sanctions against unconvicted football hooligans as long ago as June 1998. He tabled amendments to the Crime and Disorder Bill more than two years ago. Those amendments would have allowed the courts to place restrictions on anyone who
  acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that an order … is necessary to prevent him from disturbing good order at any designated football match outside the United Kingdom or during the period before or after any designated football match outside the United Kingdom …
  I must give the Home Secretary some credit because he was not wholly unreceptive. He said that my right hon. Friend's proposal for a football behaviour order was an important idea and that the Government would sit down and work on it. He has certainly been sitting down ever since.
  In a subsequent letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, the Home Secretary said:
  I feel that this proposal is very important.

  161
  Last night, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), told "Channel 4 News" that there was "a very strong case" for the proposal. However, it seems that the case has not been strong enough until now, and the proposal was not sufficiently important for the Home Secretary to include it in any of the 10 Home Office Bills this Session.
  Following the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, Conservative Members did not give up. The proposal was again made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), to whom I also pay tribute for his work, during Second Reading of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill. In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, the Home Secretary said:
  a number of Members taking part expressed their concern
  during the debate. Subsequently, the Home Secretary, his Ministers and his spin doctors have tried to perpetuate the unsustainable contention that it was exclusively Opposition Back Benchers who expressed that anxiety. The right hon. Gentleman has claimed that this "important provision" was
  dropped because the bill was disrupted by a minority of Conservative backbenchers.
  In a letter to me, the Home Secretary condemned what he had the audacity to call "Conservative wrecking tactics". He should tell his spin doctors not to claim what the record so easily disproves—or, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said yesterday with admirable straightforwardness, he should not "rewrite history". However, the right hon. Gentleman did not instruct his spin doctors that way. Instead, he grasped hold of that ludicrous spin like a drowning man clutching at straws—[Interruption.] No pun intended.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. Was it not totally wrong, on a issue such as this, to state on Second Reading that there would be a major amendment to a private Member's Bill? On an issue of such importance and on which there was a consensus across the House, would not Government legislation have been more appropriate, to ensure that it would gain Royal Assent and become law?
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is right and speaks a good deal of sense. He will see that that matches what we expected to happen. For although it may be true that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends raised concerns, so also did several Labour Members, including the hon. Gentleman. The Home Secretary and his spin doctors have never even hinted at that, yet the hon. Members who expressed concern included the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who warned that the orders could be made to apply to what he described as "innocent" fans, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who said:
  I would be extremely concerned if … we went further down the road of giving greater powers to the police in cases where convictions have not been confirmed … We should allow nothing … to compromise our commitment to civil liberty.
  The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) urged consideration of what he described as "the human rights implications" and warned of the creation of "a serious
  162
  precedent", and the hon. Member for Burnley said that the course of action proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford was "dangerous", and added:
  I have always been quite strong on civil liberty and human rights issues.—[Official Report, 16 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 491–99.1
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I endorse everything that she has said but, bearing in mind that the debate results from what has happened in Euro 2000, does she accept that to those of us who have studied all the press coverage, it appears that a number of people who have been deported back to the United Kingdom and who seem to have been involved in loutish and unacceptable behaviour were drawn into it quite innocently?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall come to that point later in my speech.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If the right hon. Lady is coming to that, perhaps she will spend a little time this afternoon considering why we have hooligans. Many people outside believe that the problem exists because of a collapse of values in the 1980s, which occurred during the period of Thatcherism—a collapse in education, a collapse in law and order, and a collapse in every value in society. That is what the public are saying. 1 know that the right hon. Lady is well aware of these matters. Why does she not speak about them?
  Miss Widdecombe: If I were to have an argument with the hon. Gentleman about the origin of the collapse of values, I would point to the 1970s and 1960s as the period when that occurred. The hon. Gentleman's comment is a distraction from the debate. We are raising the problems that the Home Secretary has not addressed, for which he has faced international condemnation. Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, the fact that the Government have not addressed the problems will be rehearsed time and again on the Floor of the House this afternoon, and he will have to sit and listen.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady is discussing what the Government have and have not done. Does she support a policy whereby one restricts the liberty of people who have not been convicted in the courts? If so, what limit is there to the proposition that people will have their rights taken away before they have been found guilty?
  Miss Widdecombe: It is my position that, subject to certain safeguards, it is desirable that we take a very serious look at doing just that.
  I should have liked the Home Secretary to have fulfilled the promise that he and his Ministers made on several occasions: they said that this was an important issue to which they would return in Government time. They did not—
  Mr. Phil Woolas: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, I wish to make progress. No one can deny that I have already given way extensively. I shall give way no more until I have finished this particular passage.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No. Given that I have just refused to give way to the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), I must refuse to give way to the hon. Gentleman as well, because I am egalitarian in my refusals.
  Perhaps the Home Secretary, his Ministers and his spin doctors will end this campaign of completely unsustainable statements, which have been twisting the reality of what happened in the House some 14 months ago. In Committee, the issue was discussed at great length, although no amendments were tabled on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made crystal clear the Opposition's support for what we believed was the Government's plan to introduce a measure in Government time, after the Minister for Sport, told us:
  The power to make banning orders in respect of people without conviction is necessary … the Government will want to return to the matter … We need to find a way of dealing with these people.
  Mr. James Paice: Where is the Minister?
  Miss Widdecombe: The more important question is, where on earth is this measure?
  The Minister for Sport continued:
  We accept that the issue is complex and that the Bill—
  that is, the private Member's Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford—
  is not the right place to deal with it … we may be able to deal with this issue later in a Government Bill.
  Still, the Government had the opportunity to include the powers in the Bill.
  However, the amendment to the Bill that dealt with this subject was not a Government amendment, as the Home Secretary's spin doctors have claimed. It was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—one of those whom the Home Secretary has accused of attempting to wreck the Bill. My right hon. Friend gave the Home Secretary a warning, which he would have done well to heed. He said:
  With the Euro 2000 championships coming up, it is important that we do not have gaps in legislation.
  That was as long ago as May 1999.
  Mr. Woolas rose
  Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I have almost finished this part of my speech; I shall then give way to him.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) warned that he was
  slightly worried that we will lose the legislation in the long term.
  He was right. He went on to say:
  I hope that the Minister's assurance is correct … People will question our judgment if incidents in the coming months or years show that we have let the loophole remain.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 May 1999; c. 5–7.]
  The Government have given commitments on this issue which they have utterly failed to fulfil. On that basis alone, the Home Secretary's judgment must be called into question.
  Mr. Woolas: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. Does she stand by the comments made by the
  164
  Conservative party spokesperson and reported in The Times of 30 May of this year? He or she—some mysterious spin doctor—said:
  Only once these measures are being fully used can we start to assess whether there is need for further legislation.
  The Conservative party spokesperson at the time accepted the Government's position. Is not the right hon. Lady trying to rewrite history?
  Miss Widdecombe: Had those measures been in place, we would now be in a position to assess them. However, the measures are not in place, so we cannot assess them.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: As we are exchanging newspaper banter across the Floor of the House, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees with the comments of Charlie Whelan, the former new Labour spokesman? He said in The Observer that Jack Straw had
  passed the buck to the Belgians,
  that he had
  a lot to answer for,
  and that the Belgians were "rightly furious".
  Miss Widdecombe: I think that, for once, Mr. Whelan has hit the nail on the head.
  Let me return to the Home Secretary's statement. He could not have been more explicit about the need to plug the loopholes that have been left as a result of his own inaction. He claimed yesterday that the majority of those who had so far been deported were not known hooligans, and that only 15 were. Setting aside the observation that that is still 15 too many, let me add that reports today indicate that as many as half those who were deported had criminal convictions. How many of those who were known hooligans travelled to Belgium and the Netherlands, contributed to the trouble and were not detected by the police in those countries?
  Tonight the BBC will screen a "Panorama" programme which purports to give answers on that front. The BBC states today that it has
  for the past eight days been covertly filming known football hooligans who have evaded checks and controls to get into Belgium and Holland.
  Yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House:
  We are pretty certain that, in all but 15 cases, our work has been effective in ensuring that those people did not travel abroad.
  He made the ludicrous statement that his actions had
  worked almost completely to prevent those people from travelling abroad.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 40–44.]
  Today, however, the BBC reports that the head of the British police hooligan spotting team has said that
  the majority of people that UK authorities hoped would be denied entry to the host countries are now in Belgium and the Netherlands.
  Analysis of that kind does not square with what the Home Secretary told the House yesterday. Who is giving us the facts, the right hon. Gentleman or the head of his anti-hooligan team?
  The Home Secretary has claimed that he is leading a new crackdown on hooligans, with tough new powers to ban hooligans for life from English football matches. Why, the House might ask, was the crackdown not initiated before the Euro 2000 tournament?

  165
  Is the Home Secretary aware that the chief executive of UEFA responded to his statement yesterday by saying that he did not believe that the Government could not have done more to stop hooligans from making it to Euro 2000, and that if new measures were being announced, they could have been taken previously?
  If the new powers are so necessary, why were they not introduced by the Home Secretary earlier? He knew about Euro 2000: my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border had warned him about it as much as a year ago. If new legislation is now needed so urgently, why did the Home Secretary even last month reject the calls for emergency legislation on the issue from the FA and others? Why has the Minister with responsibility for the issue, Lord Bassam, said this to the BBC? He said:
  We will need to revisit the range of powers we have. We need to learn the lessons from all these events.
  Will the Home Secretary tell the House what progress Lord Bassam has made since taking up his post in regard to the commitment from the Minister for Sport to introduce new Government legislation? The answer is presumably none.
  Why were the lessons not learned from Marseilles in 1998? Why did the Home Secretary allow the law enforcement agencies to go into the Euro 2000 tournament with what he and his Ministers now admit were inadequate powers to combat hooliganism? The answer is that the right hon. Gentleman has got himself into the most terrible fix—but the House does not have to take my word for it. It should take the word of the German Interior Minister, who said that he was "concerned" at the lack of legislation from the Government. It should take the word of the president of the German Football Federation, who is also chairman of the Euro 2000 committee, who said:
  It is not the best idea by your country to do nothing. We have confiscated passports to try and avoid trouble.
  The chief executive of UEFA has said:
  It is regrettable that the Government in the United Kingdom has not introduced legislation which would make it possible to stop registered hooligans from travelling.
  The mayor of Brussels commented:
  There was an agreement between the British Government and our Ministry of the Interior to stop as many people as possible who might commit offences. It has not been implemented. I do not understand why they were allowed to come here. Too many dangerous hooligans have reached the Continent.
  The UEFA executive committee said in a statement on Sunday:
  The actions over the last 48 hours have left a scar on the tournament and left us wondering why more was not done to prevent them from travelling … Other governments have shown that it can be done and we call on the UK government to take the necessary steps as a matter of urgency.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall finish this section first.
  Mr. Joe Ashton: I suppose that it is all the fault of the Government.
  Miss Widdecombe: Quite right.
  166
  Let us take the word of the chairman of the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, Mr. Ian Todd, who has said:
  The government is struggling to recover from a situation they made for themselves when they chickened out of introducing that legislation,
  or even—dare I say it—the word of a man who knows both the worlds of politics and football, and who has already been quoted in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant):
  Straw passed the buck to the Belgians and they are rightly furious.
  If the Government had done more, then we wouldn't be in the position we are today.
  The Home Secretary has no one but himself to blame for that catalogue of condemnation. He cannot blame the Opposition—indeed, he should be congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends on ensuring that the House had the issue of known but unconvicted hooligans brought to its attention.
  The Home Secretary has had more than a year to introduce the legislation that he is now spinning as a massive crackdown on hooliganism, but it comes far too late. In the Government's response to the consultation on football-related legislation, published on 31 March last year, it was stated:
  On recommendation 24—providing a power for the court to issue restriction orders on known hooligans without conviction—the Government sees merit in the proposal but requires further consideration on ECHR implications before taking the matter forward,
  yet in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, dated 29 April, the Home Secretary said:
  I have given careful consideration to whether the issue of domestic and international bans without conviction would in principle be compatible with our obligations under ECHR and the EU Treaty. I have concluded that they would.
  The only identified obstacle to the Government bringing forward the proposals was overcome, by his own admission, more than a year ago. However, the matter has not been taken forward as the Government said that it would be.
  Only yesterday, in his statement, did the Home Secretary finally undertake to move forward on the issue—and even then he was equivocal. He had the opportunity to legislate in 1998. He had the opportunity to legislate in 1999; that was when we brought forward those proposals. He could have introduced his own Bill in the current Session. We would have supported him. Even now, I repeat my offer of yesterday: if he wishes to table amendments to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill in another place, the Opposition will support him.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, during the passage of my Bill, I worked closely with the Home Office? I can confirm that legal advice was taken on the compatibility with the European convention on human rights and it was found that neither of the aims of the Bill would be incompatible. Although I took the decision not to proceed with the legislation on unconvicted hooligans, the Government desperately wanted that legislation and saw my Bill as the first legislative vehicle to do it. When they accepted that I was not going to press that, it was my firm understanding from discussions with Ministers that they would do it as soon as parliamentary time was available to them.
  Miss Widdecombe: That is my understanding from the information that my hon. Friend and others have given

  167
  me. All I can say is that, if that was the understanding, it has not been honoured, but no doubt we will hear more about that from the Home Secretary.
  Will the Home Secretary now, finally, institute measures to restrict known but unconvicted hooligans from travelling to matches to cause trouble—measures for which the Opposition have been calling for more than two years? Will he at least acknowledge that that would have the merit of convincing UEFA and the international community that we are as serious about dealing with our hooligans as other countries are about dealing with theirs, and that it would at least provide us with a defence to the threat that we now face of being expelled from the tournament if there is any more trouble?
  I am sorry that Labour Members consider that funny. I do not think that our team, after the way in which they played, consider it funny. I do not think that the numerous fans who went there simply to enjoy a game of football consider it funny. I do not think that law-abiding mortals who were caught up in all that trouble consider it funny. I do not think that other Governments consider it funny. Let us place it on the record, however, that Labour Back Benchers on the Government's second Bench think that it is hilariously funny.
  Will the Home Secretary now consider extending restrictions on attending international matches to those hooligans who are subject only to domestic banning orders? Will he also take a long, hard look at the sanctions that the United Kingdom can impose on hooligans and at whether they are adequate?
  We should be looking, in the long-term, to the 2002 world cup qualifying campaign, in which there will be further England-Germany matches. In September 2001, England will travel to Germany to play in what may well be a crucial qualifier. We can only hope that whoever is Home Secretary at that time—I do not believe that it will be the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues—will not have to make further statements to the House about hooligan violence that could and should have been averted.
  Two years ago, and one year ago, we were warning about Euro 2000. Today, I warn the Home Secretary about the 2002 world cup, and I hope that he will take that rather more seriously than he took previous warnings. Meanwhile, the Opposition will give the Government our full support in planning and legislating to close the loopholes for that campaign. However, on the evidence of Euro 2000, the Government's track record is worryingly patchy.
  The Government's record of inaction has been roundly and rightly criticised across the board. Yesterday, the Home Secretary all but admitted that his policy had failed and that he would have to close the stable door after the horse had well and truly gone. However, he cannot say that he was not warned.
  The Home Secretary must take responsibility. He must take responsibility if we should, heaven forbid, be expelled from the tournament. He must take responsibility for doing nothing. He must take responsibility for the way in which our name has become mud because of the way that the matter has been handled. He is a Home Secretary who should now come to the Dispatch Box to apologise, and he should do so without any reservation.
  4.13 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "wholly deplores the violence in Belgium during the Euro 2000 competition perpetrated by United Kingdom citizens, and condemns the irresponsibility and criminality of those involved; welcomes the good co-operation between the British police and National Criminal Intelligence Service with the law enforcement agencies in Belgium, the Netherlands and France by which a large number of individuals with banning orders from football-related convictions against them have been prevented from travelling to Belgium and the Netherlands; strongly supports the many measures already taken by Her Majesty's Government, the police and other agencies; and endorses the further measures announced by the Secretary of State for the Home Department yesterday."
  As I made clear yesterday in my statement to the House, we condemn unreservedly the outrageous behaviour over the past weekend, in Brussels and Charleroi, of the so-called English football fans who brought such shame to our country and to our national game. The nation's sense of outrage at the disgraceful behaviour of a boorish minority of our fellow countrymen has not diminished in the past 24 hours; nor has our apprehension that their misdeeds could still ruin the pleasure which many of us anticipate from further English success in Euro 2000.
  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for the tribute that she paid to our police forces and police officers who are working in Europe and to our football authorities.
  I believe that all true football fans can only be horrified that, once again, events off the field have so overshadowed the performance of the English football team on it. The Government understand and share the anger and frustration of the football authorities in Europe.
  The action that UEFA has now taken in response to the violence in Brussels and Charleroi is, I believe, unprecedented. England is, effectively, on a yellow card. Some may feel that UEFA's action is too harsh, seeking to penalise a nation for the misdemeanours of a small minority. I do not share that view. UEFA itself has a responsibility to its host country. The people of Belgium and the Netherlands were entitled to expect a festival of football. When instead the inhabitants of two Belgian cities were subjected to drunken chanting, frequent outbursts of racism, intimidatory behaviour, and then violence, UEFA felt that it had a responsibility to act.
  There are those who say that English supporters are not the only ones who have misbehaved, or who claim that they were provoked. Of course, it is true that international hooliganism is not an exclusively English phenomenon. Other football supporters misbehave, but none have disgraced themselves with the monotonous regularity of so-called England followers. I remind the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that football hooliganism did not start in 1997, but has been a serious problem that has concerned successive Governments over at least three decades.
  As I also said in my statement yesterday, the first major disturbances involving England supporters took place in Brussels last Friday, 16 June, and the next day further disturbances occurred in Charleroi as well as in Brussels.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: While I do not disagree with the Home Secretary's sentiments about

  169
  UEFA's action, can he assist the House in understanding why UEFA refused to act after the death of two Leeds United fans in Turkey following a match there?
  Mr. Straw: I take the hon. Lady's point, but I cannot assist the House because I do not have access to the internal considerations of UEFA. If she wishes me to do so, I shall take the matter up with UEFA via our football authorities.
  Mr. Banks: Of course no one blames UEFA for its rightful anger—we all feel it. However, it is extraordinary that, before the press conference, the chairman and the chief executive of the Football Association were not given an opportunity to discuss the matter. There comes a point when one feels that an element of politics has entered the situation, and that would be disastrous for the English game—and for world football.
  Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and he has much greater knowledge than I do of the internal workings of international and European football associations. However, the House will agree that it is unruly so-called English supporters who have provided the occasion for the decisions that UEFA has made so far and of which it has warned us.
  The latest figures that we have are that 916 British citizens have been arrested in the course of the tournament, many in disturbances in Brussels and Charleroi last Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The majority of those arrests were what the Belgians call "administrative arrests", with a great many people being picked up for failure to carry a passport or other identification. In such cases, no charges have followed, but many—although by no means all—of the individuals concerned have been subject to deportation. Some 464 of them have so far been returned to the United Kingdom, being flown back either to Manchester or Stansted airports. Some of the remainder are likely to be deported direct to the UK, but many have been released without any further charge in Belgium, and that includes a majority of those arrested in Charleroi. The British consul in Brussels knows so far of six—of the more than 900 arrested—who are subject to criminal proceedings in Belgium, although that figure may rise.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Is it true that a substantial number of the more than 400 people who have been deported have criminal convictions?
  Mr. Straw: The information I was given this morning showed that 16 of those 464 were on the list of 1,000 provided by the National Criminal Intelligence Service of known football hooligans or those with football-related convictions. An analysis is being made, and I shall provide it to the House when it is available, but it is true that a substantial proportion of the total number arrested had criminal convictions against them that were not related to football. In order to put that into perspective, however, I should also like to explain—I shall provide more details in a moment—that a third of all young men have a criminal conviction of one kind or another by the age of 30. That is a dreadful commentary on our society,
  170
  but it happens to be the case. A quarter of a group born in 1968 who were subject to analysis had convictions by the age of 24.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Does the Home Secretary feel that it would have been franker and better had he made that clear in his statement yesterday? As it is in the press this morning, I assume that it was in the knowledge of the Home Office when he made the statement.
  Mr. Straw: Had I had the information, I would have made it available. I have never sought not to make available information of that kind. The fact that it is publicly known that a third of all people have convictions by the age of 30 would have led people to say that, of any random sample of 1,000 men picked up anywhere in the country, at least a third were likely to have had criminal convictions.
  Mr. John Bercow: Of the 97 Britons so far subject to international banning orders, how many are known to have breached those orders? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what assessment he has made of the criteria for, and of the resources allocated to, surveillance operations on suspected football hooligans?
  Mr. Straw: I think the total, which I was given this morning, of those subject to international banning orders is 99. We have checked, and the latest information is that 94 of them have fully complied with their reporting conditions. The police are making inquiries about the whereabouts of the other five. They have committed an arrestable offence of failure to report, and the police will be following that up.
  I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact answer with regard to surveillance resources. I shall be happy to write to him or see whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State can provide the information when he winds up. We have sought to ensure that the police have adequate surveillance methods and equipment, and also, of course, that they have adequate powers.
  Mr. Burns: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's answer about the criminal records of a number of people in Europe at present, will he reconsider the answer he gave me yesterday? Does not this new fact of which the Home Secretary is aware make the case that if we had had banning orders for unconvicted football hooligans before Euro 2000, we could have stopped most of them leaving this country for the tournament?
  Mr. Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I shall come on to who said what to whom during the proceedings on his Bill if he wishes. But the central truth, which means that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was almost entirely off the point in her speech, is that the police have a list of 500 or so against whom there are banning orders of one kind or another. They include the international banning orders that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned, of which there are 99. The other 400 are made up of other kinds of banning orders; the hon. Gentleman will know that there are three kinds.
  Those names have been provided to the Belgian and Dutch authorities. In addition, the names of 500 other hooligans known to have football-related convictions

  171
  against them have also been provided to the Belgians and the Dutch. Where there has been an attempt by individuals on either list to travel to Belgium or the Netherlands, we have, thanks to a very effective spotting system, provided that information to the Belgian and Dutch authorities, and those people have been turned round at the port of entry.
  Of course I accept that we would have preferred to have on the statute book the full range of orders available through the vehicle of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). We have never pretended otherwise. However, the work that has been done means that we have achieved by other methods the ends sought—by the hon. Gentleman and by the Government—in that Bill, and that the people involved have been dealt with effectively. As I shall explain, the problem is that the football-related violence that has happened in Belgium is caused by people who are not on those lists.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend referred to the central point in this matter. Millions of people believe that that central point is the appalling statistic that my right hon. Friend produced—that one third of all young men under 30 in the United Kingdom have been the subject of a criminal charge. That shows what the values of the 1980s and 1990s did to a generation of young people. They are the children of Thatcher, and we are paying the price for the damage done in those years.
  Mr. Straw: If I may, I shall give my hon. Friend and the House the precise information on that matter. For a cohort of men born in 1968, 26 per cent. had convictions by the age of 24, and 10 per cent. had convictions for violence against the person, sexual offences or robbery. In comparison, among men born in 1953, 34 per cent. had some convictions by the age of 40, and 10.5 per cent. had convictions for violence, sexual offences or robbery.
  In the interests of complete accuracy, I must tell the House that a note just passed to me states that the total number of people subject to international football banning orders is 101, not 99.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised the underlying issue, but I wish to return to a matter of fact. Given the fear of violence in Belgium or Holland, will the Home Secretary say whether the Home Office considered intervening to prevent people with previous convictions for violence—in the past seven years, for example—from travelling on the basis that there was reasonable cause to believe that an offence might be committed? Would it not have been possible under our existing law for our police to stop such people leaving the country, or for the Belgian or Dutch police to stop them entering their countries? That approach would cover a range of people who may turn out to have been involved in the violence and to have been sent back from those countries, but who have never had football-related offences recorded against them.
  Mr. Straw: A good deal of attention has been given to that matter, and to the provision of intelligence about people who were identified, through being questioned at ports, as having previous convictions that were not football-related. That information has been provided to the Belgian and Dutch authorities. In the main, those authorities have decided that their laws mean that it is not possible for them routinely to turn those people back.
  172
  I of course considered carefully whether powers existed in the United Kingdom that would have allowed people seeking to leave the country to be peremptorily turned back on the basis that it appeared that they might cause trouble abroad. However, the House knows that powers to restrain United Kingdom citizens from leaving the UK are not available to any Secretary of State. Whether such powers should exist is a very large question, as they would give individual police officers huge discretion.
  A point that I have raised repeatedly in discussions with my Belgian and Dutch counterparts is that, in Europe and around the world, it is always easier peremptorily to refuse entry of a non-national to a country than it is to prevent the exit of national from that country. It is routine, on my direct signature or by delegated authority, for all sorts of people to be refused entry to the United Kingdom because their presence is not regarded as conducive to the public good or because they fall foul of other criteria. We hope very much that the Belgian and Dutch authorities will follow suit.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and hope that I can be helpful to him. I remember from my dim and distant days as a law student, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does as well, that under the civil jurisdiction, judges of the High Court can in civil cases issue orders called ne exeat regno, which prevent people without criminal convictions but who have something to do with a civil case from leaving the kingdom. Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the Law Officers to see whether that power is available to be used in the circumstances that we are discussing, and whether it is available to be used either civilly or in the criminal jurisdiction in the circumstances that he and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have just been discussing? It may be worth looking into.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his recollection of his law lectures. I am afraid that I do not recall that particular aspect and, as I have been asked to offer apologies, I will offer an apology about that. However, I will certainly take up the hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
  Given that passports are issued under the royal prerogative, two years ago we looked carefully at the possibility of withdrawing the facility of a passport by the royal prerogative as well—in other words, by Executive fiat. However, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, the strong advice that we received, with which it was impossible to disagree—apart from the fact that there were major issues of principle—was that as Parliament had already intervened to modify the exercise of that royal prerogative by, for example, other statutory measures to restrict the exit of people from this country, the use of the prerogative for such purposes was not possible; there was also a query as to whether it was desirable.
  In the 1970s and 1980s, this country suffered terribly from criminality and hooliganism in football grounds and away from those grounds but in the United Kingdom. Over time, a combination of increasingly effective police action, better design and security in the grounds and a greater acceptance of responsibility by the clubs has led to a great diminution in trouble here at home.

  173
  It has also meant that our police service has built up unrivalled expertise in dealing with the hooligan problem in this country. That expertise, relying on the traditional British policing virtues of careful targeting and careful planning, has many times shown its value in the course of joint operations such as the one put in place in this country for the Euro 96 tournament.
  Last November, I established a co-ordinating group to make preparations for Euro 2000. That group brought together officials from Government, with representatives of the football authorities, the police service and NCIS. It also co-ordinated the efforts being made with the Belgian and Dutch authorities to ensure effective co-operation in the run-up to, and during, the tournament.
  I have had many meetings with my Belgian and Dutch counterparts over the past few months. I signed a memorandum of understanding with the Belgian and Dutch Ministers in February, and I have in recent days had regular contact, in person and on the telephone, with Klaus de Vries, the Dutch Minister of the Interior, and Antoine Duquesne, the Belgian Minister of the Interior.
  The measures in place are the most extensive ever made prior to any similar major sporting tournament abroad. Central to this strategy has been effective police co-operation between ourselves and the police in Belgium and Holland. As a result, the Belgian and Dutch police sought and received from our police service the most detailed and extensive operational advice about arrangements that they were putting in place for Euro 2000.
  As well as providing operational advice, British police officers have been deployed in Belgium and Holland, and on Eurostar, to act as spotters to help police operations here and abroad. NCIS has collated details of individuals convicted of football-related offences in the past—and those whom it has suspected of causing trouble. The list of names, as I told the House, was passed to its counterparts in France, as well as those in Holland and Belgium, well before the tournament began.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, because he has been very generous in giving way. Most of the 460-odd people whom he described as having been administratively deported will presumably not have been charged with any offence, and will therefore have no record in the future. Will the Home Secretary say whether the Belgian authorities, in conjunction with the co-operation that he has described, are continuing their inquiries against any of those 460-odd people, and whether any further charges are likely to arise?
  Mr. Straw: I understand that no charges have been laid at any stage against any of those 464, which is why they were subject to administrative deportation. We have only the barest details—if this needs to be added to, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State does so when he replies—of the site at which they were subject to arrest. We have no further details. There is no evidence of any kind that could be used in any court at all—
  Mr. Fabricant rose—
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will wait for a moment, I shall answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
  174
  The hon. Member for Cotswold may have heard this morning, as I did, the police chief from Belgium. I am trying to turn up the transcript. He may have heard Colonel Blickie answering a question from Mr. Edward Stourton on "Today". Mr. Stourton asked:
  Do you accept that some of those who were arrested were innocent?
  Colonel Blickie replied:
  Yes of course, yes of course.
  Mr. Stourton asked:
  Do you regret that?
  The colonel replied:
  Of fact, a fact you regret it that's the problem. When we are doing our operations in the street, it's rather difficult to make the difference between those who committed some crimes in the street and those who were together with them and did nothing.
  He added that people should have kept away from potential trouble.
  Mr. Fabricant: On that point, and further to it, will the Home Secretary be making representations to the Belgian police, to request copies of video tapes that they will have taken, to add to the files of NCIS? Were members of the British police or their agents in Belgium at that time making their own video tapes? If such video tapes will be made available, will the right hon. Gentleman eventually introduce Government legislation so that we can impose banning orders on those individuals or withdraw their passports—powers for which we have been asking?
  Mr. Straw: I understand that NCIS will be seeking whatever evidence it can secure from the Belgian authorities. British police officers have certainly been acting as spotters in Belgium as well as in the Netherlands, and have been present in the bi-national police control operation.
  As I have already said, the majority of those arrested in Charleroi were not deported. They were released without any further action or charge being taken. We must accept that—as I shall be making clear later—different police services operate in a different way.
  I was explaining about the lists with which we were provided by NCIS. They included individuals subject to international banning orders, those subject to domestic banning orders and—to deal directly with the point relating to the civil order which we had hoped to see provided for in the Bill introduced last year by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford—the 500 people who have been convicted of football-related offences in the past but who are not subject to banning orders of any sort.
  We asked the authorities overseas to refuse entry to Belgium and Holland to all those on the lists during the duration of the tournament, and that operation has largely been effective. Of the 464 individuals so far deported, having been arrested in Charleroi and Brussels last weekend, the latest information of which I am aware is that only 16 were suspected football hooligans and one was subject to a domestic banning order.
  We can debate what happened to the Bill of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford until the cows come home. The reality is that the same effect as the effect of including provisions for such civil orders in that Bill, which we wanted and which many Opposition Members—although not all—wanted has been achieved by another route.

  175
  A larger question is what to do with those who have not been the subject of football-related convictions but who have other convictions of violence. That is a new issue with which we must deal.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I should like to make some progress. I shall then give way to the hon. Gentleman, who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench.
  Much has been made of the efforts of the German authorities and police to prevent known hooligans from travelling to Belgium and or the Netherlands. I applaud the commitment of my counterpart in Germany—Interior Minister Otto Schilly—and his colleagues in the action that they have taken. There are, however, two points of difference for the House to note. First, each police service in the European Union operates in a wholly different judicial framework and has a different framework for the accountability of the police. The police in one jurisdiction may long have had powers of arrest and detention that may appear peremptory and unacceptable in other jurisdictions. Secondly, we are not the only nation to suffer football hooliganism, but our hooliganism is different both in its scale and in its provenance.
  In an interesting report on Radio 4's "Today" programme this morning, German hooliganism was described as "highly organised". Part of our hooliganism is also highly organised and premeditated. Where that is the case, our police have been able to take effective action to prevent those involved from travelling. More than 200 people arrested in Charleroi were UK citizens, but I remind the House that 130 German citizens were arrested too. The efforts of the German police have not stopped the travel from Germany of those who have subsequently got into trouble.
  The difference with our country is this: the evidence suggests that a significant part of English hooliganism abroad is much more difficult to detect and prevent in advance because it is not organised, and nor is much of it specifically premeditated. That does not excuse hooliganism one bit, but it does pose much greater difficulties in dealing with it. The dismal truth is that the vast majority of those arrested during last weekend's outrageous events did not have previous convictions for football-related offences, and nor were they suspected of having been so involved. That is perhaps the most depressing aspect of what happened in Belgium. The problems were not created by a tiny minority of well-organised, hard-core thugs.
  Mr. Heald: Does the Home Secretary intend to introduce legislation to enable international banning orders to be made if there is evidence that someone who has not necessarily been convicted is a risk? The Home Secretary said that he would have liked such provision introduced in the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), so when will he do it himself?
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall make my view clear during my speech.
  Mr. Banks: I by no means seek to excuse unacceptable and inexcusable behaviour, but I can back up my
  176
  right hon. Friend's point. Is he aware that judges in Argentina recently closed down the football season twice because of deaths by shooting inside and outside football grounds? That sort of thing happens, tragically, around the world, but we tend not to read about it quite so much in our newspapers.
  Mr. Straw: Of course a great many countries have serious hooliganism at home. On the whole, thanks to the very good efforts of our police forces and greatly improved acceptance of responsibility among the clubs, that is generally a thing of the past here.
  Mr. Burns: Will the Home Secretary clear up one point beyond doubt? How many of the British subjects arrested in Belgium and Holland rather than turned around at the port of entry have convictions not for football-related offences, but for other matters?
  Mr. Straw: I cannot give the House the precise figure, but it is a significant minority—somewhere between 30 and 40 per cent., I understand. I have already made that point about three times, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to make a further point about it I shall be happy to give way.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful. The point that I am trying to make is that, as about 35 per cent. of those people had criminal records—albeit not football-related—we could, if we had had the power to withdraw passports from hooligans unconvicted of football-related offences, probably have removed their passports because the courts might have been satisfied that they might offend abroad.
  Mr. Straw: That proposition needs thought, for it goes way beyond anything advanced in any part of the House during the passage of the hon. Gentleman's Bill—which was about taking powers in respect of individuals convicted of football-related offences.
  We have to be careful about proportionality. Removing a person's passport in any circumstances is a significant sanction. The fact that a substantial minority of those arrested in Charleroi have criminal convictions should come as no surprise. because it simply reflects the proportion of men aged 30 in the population as a whole who have convictions—although I accept some may be serious. My central point is that a majority of those arrested had no convictions. Those persons arrested in Belgium did not, overwhelmingly, have football-related convictions. Nor were they subject to banning orders. No legislation predicated on stopping or preventing convicted and suspected football hooligans would have made much difference to the number who travelled abroad. That is a fundamental shortcoming of the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
  As I made clear yesterday, the Government are committed to examining the powers and arrangements for dealing with football hooliganism in the light of events. The Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, implemented last September, followed widespread consultation about the adequacy of football-related legislation—which had grown up piecemeal over the previous decade. None the less, that statute has limitations. When we have a serious debate, we can go into who said what to whom at the time. The fact is that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst

  177
  (Mr. Forth) accepts that he said things in opposition to the propositions of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford—as did other hon. Members. The right hon. Lady said that opposition did not come "exclusively" from Conservative Members. I noted with care her use of that adverb—but significant opposition came from Conservative Members and was the reason for the legislation's limitations.
  Although there are 101 recipients of international football banning orders, there are 400 domestic banning orders in force. The public may see no reason for allowing a person on whom a court has seen fit to impose a domestic ban to attend football matches abroad. I share that view. Almost certainly the right way to proceed is to merge international and domestic banning orders—but I will consider representations from right hon. and hon. Members and the police before reaching a final view.
  Mr. Pike: In addition to the two categories my right hon. Friend specified, would it not be a good idea to ask all the premier division and Nationwide clubs? Almost every club has a list of undesirable people whom they do not want at their grounds—not all of whom have been in court.
  Mr. Straw: I cannot speak for Burnley but a large amount of information—[Interruption.] I am told that the Prime Minister's press secretary speaks for Burnley.
  As to spinning, I may tell the right hon. Lady that I am the most unspun Minister I know. The only spinning in which I am ever involved is at 8 o'clock on Monday mornings, in the gym—when I have a spinning lesson that goes on for three quarters of an hour.
  Mr. Bercow: Where?
  Mr. Straw: On the spinning bikes.
  Mr. Bercow: In which gym?
  Mr. Straw: In the House of Commons gym. If anybody wishes to be visually offended at that time of the morning, they are welcome to join me.
  Mr. Ashton: I am a former director of a premier league club, so may I point out to my right hon. Friend that the Data Protection Acts inhibit the exchange of information tremendously? As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, every club has about 50 or 60 names and addresses of the people who have been arrested, evicted or convicted. The clubs are forbidden from trading such information because of the Data Protection Acts, and the police are forbidden from letting them have such information. If my right hon. Friend could slightly amend the Data Protection Acts to allow for the trading of that information so as to prevent crimes or hooliganism, that would be very helpful.
  Mr. Straw: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. There are many myths about the Data Protection Acts and we are seeking to deal with them. We sought to deal with them by an amendment to the law in section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to ensure that there can be proper data sharing not only by
  178
  law-enforcement agencies, but by others involved in the prevention and detection of crime. I have talked directly to Elizabeth France, the Data Protection Commissioner, about the issue and she has made the point that the data protection legislation is there not to prevent the transmission of data, but to regulate the circumstances in which it takes place.
  I am happy to take the matter up with my hon. Friend's club and with the football league and the premier league. As I understand it, there is no reason at all why such information should not be made available to the police. There is a different issue about whether the police can make information available in return, but the purpose will be served if information is made available to the police.
  As I have told the House, only a handful of the 464 people who have so far been deported from Belgium were known to the National Criminal Intelligence Service as confirmed or suspected hooligans. That again raises the point about the limitations of such orders. Even in those cases, it cannot be assumed—not least given what Colonel Blickie of the Belgian police said this morning—that the evidence against them would have been sufficient to satisfy a court that a banning order ought to be issued to the civil standard of proof.
  As I have also told the House, NCIS is carefully analysing the lists of those deported to check on previous convictions and on occupations better to profile the kind of individual who gets involved in hooliganism.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I have given way to the hon. Lady once and other Members wish to speak.
  With the benefit of experience, we shall sit down with the police, NCIS and others to see what further legislative and other changes may be needed in the future. As I made clear yesterday, the disgraceful scenes that we have seen over the past few days require a more immediate response. That is why I announced yesterday further measures to put pressure on would-be hooligans.
  First, we have taken steps to ensure as far as possible that none of the several hundred people who have been deported from Belgium in recent days may slip back into that country or the Netherlands without the knowledge of the authorities. We have intensified the scrutiny of passengers leaving ports and airports en route for France as well as for Belgium over the critical period before tonight's match at Charleroi.
  Mr. Heald: The Home Secretary will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made the point that Eddie Curtis, who is the head of the anti-hooligan spotting team, has said that most of the undesirables that they do not want in Belgium and Holland are actually there already. Is that right?
  Mr. Straw: I have not seen that remark from Mr. Curtis. However, I repeat that my information, which has been provided by NCIS this morning, is that, of the 464 who were deported—by definition, much more information is known about them than about those who may happen to be in Charleroi—only a handful were known to NCIS as confirmed or suspected hooligans.

  179
  Secondly, I have asked that contact be made by our police with all those deported over the past few days to warn them not to try to return to Belgium or the Netherlands and to ensure that they understand the likely serious consequences of their returning. Thirdly, building on the significant British presence already in Belgium, we have asked whether there is any way in which the operational value of the British police's contribution to the Belgian operation can further be enhanced.
  Fourthly, we have suggested that the Belgian and Dutch authorities mark the passports of the people whom they deport.
  Fifthly, we have asked the Belgian authorities to take action to restrict the consumption of alcohol which, in the end, is a matter for the municipal authorities. However, I understand that the mayor of Charleroi has decided in response to the hooliganism to prohibit drinking in cafés in the main square. I am glad that he has done that and am grateful to him.
  Finally, more can be done to deter football violence overseas by bringing it home to people that the consequence could well be expulsion for life from the ground of the team that they support. I was glad to report yesterday that the Football Association and premier league clubs have decided that any supporter convicted of hooliganism, or against whom there is good evidence of hooliganism, should be banned for life from attending football matches in England.
  The events of last weekend serve as a shocking reminder of the potential for serious disorder from young men who have attached themselves as supporters of the England team. We must take action to deal with that and are doing so. Only when the nation can feel as proud of all our fellow England supporters as we did of our team on Saturday can we be confident that we have defeated the dreadful criminal scourge of English hooliganism.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It is obviously good to have the opportunity afforded by this timely debate. I join colleagues from the other parties in congratulating the England team on their success last Saturday, wishing them well in their match this evening and thanking them for the manifestly good way in which the team and the management have behaved and dealt with the press. Indeed, they have represented England as well as anyone could have wished and have done us proud.
  We clearly share in the embarrassment, agree with the condemnation and share the regret that, by and large, it is English supporters and British citizens in Belgium and Holland who have brought discredit to those who follow the game. It is a tragedy that what should be a festival of football and one of the great pleasures of the sporting season has been tarnished again and that England has to take collective responsibility for that.
  The central question has already been referred to, and involves men almost exclusively, predominantly English men. Why do so many young English men display unacceptably loutish and intolerant behaviour, not just in connection with football games, but regularly in so many places? Why do we often see drunken and arrogant behaviour, which is frequently racist, xenophobic and intolerant on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights in towns and cities throughout the country? Why do so many
  180
  people make a pastime of going away regularly for loutish weekends on the British coast and behave as if continuing a stag night? Why do we often export such behaviour to Mediterranean and other resorts, where being loutish, boorish, crude, offensive and vulgar is regarded as an acceptable part of holiday culture? People behave like that regardless of the effect on their hosts and other visitors. That behaviour is no different in connection with football than it is in Malaga, Ibiza, Ayia Napa and other coastal resorts of the Mediterranean or, to be honest, Blackpool, Bournemouth and other coastal resorts in this country.
  We are focusing on a particular sporting event but, unless we get to grips with this issue, we are leaping on a passing bandwagon and ignoring our wider responsibility.
  Mr. Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the central question. Surely, that question is why are only three Conservative Members taking part in this Opposition day debate on the important issue of football violence?
  Mr. Hughes: Though not central, that is surprising, given that this is one of some 14 days of the year on which Conservative Members choose the subject for debate.
  The other paradox is that many of the people who get caught up in this hooliganism live a Jekyll and Hyde existence, and to be fair, the Home Secretary suggested that too, in his speech. From Monday to Friday, they do a decent job, work hard and behave as respectable members of society, and from knocking-off time on Friday, they adopt another life style. They are hooligans not all week, but on weekends and on holiday, where some of their family, colleagues and friends cannot see them.
  Mr. David Heath: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the apologists for such behaviour do nobody any favours by suggesting that it is the fault of the police in the country concerned for being over-enthusiastic or under-enthusiastic in policing events, or—this point ties in with what my hon. Friend is saying—that boys will be boys and that alcohol-fuelled loutishness is acceptable under any circumstances?
  Mr. Hughes: I agree, and I shall return to that point in a moment.
  I declare my interest as someone who, like the Home Secretary, goes to football matches regularly. I go to my local club, Millwall, which has also had problems. It has worked extremely hard and successfully and has almost entirely solved those problems, which is to its credit because the club's tradition was not one to be proud of. Like many colleagues, I have seen and heard bad behaviour in football grounds. We need to be clear that such behaviour is often accompanied by the language of racism, homophobia and sexism.
  Those antagonistic, aggressive attitudes are often a short step from physical violence. The people who will use such language are often those who, let us be blunt, are violent at home, to their partners and children, and elsewhere. I hope that we will return soon to that wider agenda because we must take care to focus on dealing with those endemic fundamental problems, which the

  181
  Government, to their credit, are seeking to tackle. I am not especially critical of the Government on this issue, but we have not rooted out such behaviour, and we will not root it out by having this debate or by introducing legislation that focuses only on people who go to football matches or on football supporters abroad.
  I return to the point made by my hon. Friend. Parliament spends a great deal of time discussing drugs and drug-related crime, of which there is a huge amount. I have always argued that the fewer drugs—whether NHS-supplied, legal or illegal—there are in society, the better. The fewer people addicted to substances that vary their natural behaviour, the better. We have often concentrated on a range of drugs, particularly illegal drugs, but not on alcohol. It is important for us to realise that, whereas roughly two thirds of property-related crime is linked to illegal drugs, many offences against the person are alcohol related. They occur in the street, after closing time, and at home. We need to put higher up the British political agenda the issue of how we are to deal with alcohol-related crime. I am not being critical of the Government for not recognising that issue, but I want there to be parity between the responses to alcohol-linked crime and crime that is linked to other drugs, because alcohol is a drug as well.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have held two significant seminars on alcohol and crime, which were chaired by myself and involved all the relevant organisations, and we are now developing detailed action plans to deal with precisely those issues? The hon. Gentleman's remarks are absolutely right, and the matter is a priority for the Government.
  Mr. Hughes: To be honest, I was not aware that there had been two seminars. I do not think that I was invited; if I had been, I might have come. I am happy to discuss the issues with the Minister, in a seminar or elsewhere. I hope that I was not unfair to the Government. I said that they recognised the issue, and we need collectively to highlight it because so many crimes are alcohol related.
  Mr. David Drew: Obviously, the consistent theme is the role of alcohol. Is it worth us saying to all the authorities that it may be good to maximise television and other revenues, but they ought to consider changing the time of matches because the ability to drink all day and all night is always the cause of all the aggravation?
  Mr. Hughes: That is a good point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) has just told me that derby games are often arranged to accommodate that. Again, I declare an interest: I was brought up the son of a brewer and my grandad was a brewer. I am not against alcohol. Indeed, my mother's pension would not be paid if it were not for the profits of the Whitbread brewery company.
  The problem is that we in this country often do not manage to combine the responsible use of alcohol with normal civilised behaviour. A couple of weeks ago, I spent two days in France. I was in Avignon on a Saturday night and there was no loutish behaviour. People were enjoying their evening out; they were having meals and
  182
  drinking sensibly. There is a cultural problem in this country that allows the normal use of alcohol to spin over into completely irresponsible activity.
  On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I do not criticise the Dutch and Belgians for responding significantly differently, but I take the point made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn); there is a quiet moral story in that access to low alcohol beer and less dangerous drugs was perhaps a far more helpful combination at Eindhoven in Holland than access to the stronger beer on which the Belgians pride themselves and no drugs in Charleroi. It is good that the mayor of Charleroi has said that he will restrict the sale of alcohol. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) says, we must always ensure that people are not encouraged to drink more than they would otherwise or to spend the time waiting for kick-off drinking.
  Another important question, which has not been mentioned, is that of liberty but, in this context, it is not entirely straightforward. I will defend—perhaps not quite to the death, although I hope that I would—people's right to walk the streets freely if they have no conviction preventing them from travelling. Indeed, there is a duty in the European Union to allow people to travel freely. We are, however, permitted to curb access to private venues. Football clubs are private venues, and international football matches are also private in that sense. Therefore, it is entirely possible, if it is thought appropriate, to curb liberties involving fee-paying activities—whether going to bars to drink or going to football matches to watch football.
  We must be careful always to distinguish between restricting the liberties of people to walk the streets, travel freely and live their lives, and particular activities such as going to a football match, which is not a right and can be subject to conditions, just as driving is not a right and can be subject to conditions. What action should be taken? I presume that that is the question that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) wanted to put on the agenda.
  As the Prime Minister said yesterday or the day before, the first responsibility is that of the individual. We can legislate day in and day out but, until individuals realise that they must take responsibility for their actions, we have not got the message across. In addition, it is the responsibility of the family, the friend, the colleague or whoever to say, "That is not acceptable." It is their responsibility to restrain the friend who might get out of hand, or to say, "I am not going with you if you do that." It is their responsibility to say, "I think you have had enough to drink." Those in any group have a responsibility to manage one another, but I am afraid that, increasingly, we have a society in which far too many people walk away from that responsibility. It is sometimes difficult, painful and dangerous, but we must stand up for people's right to walk the streets in safety—a phrase that the Prime Minister has also used. That means that people may have to intervene to stop someone else behaving badly.
  What should Parliament do? This morning, The Independent published a useful table in which the relevant laws of the 16 countries participating in Euro 2000 were summarised. It made it clear that, apart from Germany, we already have the toughest legislation. Therefore, the suggestion that we have no decent

  183
  legislation is based on a false premise. We have much legislation and we have done a lot. We should remember that recent Governments of both parties have made progress. My colleagues and I support the idea that we should move as quickly as possible to ensure that all such bans apply domestically and internationally; there is no logic in simply saying that people cannot go to a match at home. We support the Home Secretary in wanting to go down that road.
  It is also clear to us that there are some things that we should not do. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, who looks after sport for our party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who did this job before me, and I have all made it clear, in letters to the Home Secretary and in other ways, that we do not believe that it is either consistent with the British tradition or appropriate or proportional in the circumstances to legislate to take from people without convictions the right to travel. In passing, let me say that I am sure that the House feels great solidarity with my right hon. Friend after the tragic loss of his son last week. He would otherwise probably have been with us today. We would oppose legislation that would take away that right. There is no consensus for it, it would be wrong to assume that Parliament would willingly go down that road and there would be opposition from those on the Tory and Labour Benches and on our Benches. I am not sure that such a Bill would get through the other place, even if it got through this place.
  We must be clear that there is legislation that we could enact and legislation that we should not enact, but, as the Home Secretary said yesterday—I take his side rather than that of his Conservative shadow—even if we had pursued the proposals that have been made over the past two years, they would not have dealt with the majority of the people who caused trouble in recent days. It is no good pretending that the proposals would have been a solution, as many of those involved either had no convictions or had no relevant convictions. That is why I asked the Home Secretary whether we should also consider those with convictions for violence, not just those with football-related convictions.
  What action should others take? We made the point yesterday that the Belgian and the Dutch authorities could take certain additional action. In addition to limiting the availability of alcohol, the Home Secretary may have pursued the suggestion of cordoning off various areas, not only around a football stadium, but, if necessary, around the squares in Brussels or elsewhere. All that we can do is make suggestions, as the Dutch and Belgian Governments are sovereign, but such action could be carried out perfectly legally. The police in this country regularly cordon off areas and allow through only those with a right to go through, such as people who live and work in those areas, people with tickets for the match, the teams and their supporters.
  I must refer to our police. I understand that it is easier to stop people coming into this country than to stop people leaving, but it seems entirely consistent with the law for our police or police in other countries to be entitled to apprehend a person whom they have reasonable cause to believe might commit an offence and, in this example, to prevent that person from travelling. On that basis, I assume that the Dutch and the Belgians can stop specific people from coming into their countries. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if the Minister of State, Home Office,
  184
  the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—if I might have his attention for a second—would confirm that our authorities are empowered under the present law to stop people leaving if there is reasonable cause to believe that they might commit offences and cause trouble. We could question someone with a conviction for a violent offence committed during the past seven years—not a spent conviction—and ask for guarantees. We could also even say, "Sorry, we are not allowing you to go any further."
  Yesterday, in summary, I raised the point about spotters with the Home Secretary, simply on the basis of information from people who were in Belgium last weekend. I am told by somebody who works in this place—a perfectly responsible adult who went to the game—that many people on the train from Charleroi to Brussels invited others, by telephone and in conversation, to join them later at a venue in Brussels for a ruck and to cause trouble in the town after the match. We must make sure that we have enough of our police listening, watching and acting with the other intelligence services to enable all such information to be fed to the Belgian and Dutch authorities. I have travelled on those trains often, as I lived in Belgium for a while. The more that we can police the main train routes in Holland and Belgium, the more likely that we are to pick up on action co-ordinated by the mobile phone, which is increasingly used in crime, not just in relation to football.
  What action should UEFA take? My colleagues and I have a clear view: it would be wrong for UEFA to eliminate the English team. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) made the linked point exactly. UEFA was wrong to have had a three-hour meeting in the past two days without having the FA present. That is completely unacceptable. The FA should have been present, not only at the end of the meeting to allow it to put its case, but throughout. It would be absolutely unacceptable for UEFA to take the decision to disqualify without laying down clear criteria and ensuring that they apply to every country. Also, the same penalty should apply to each country. UEFA should also ensure that there is every chance for a case to be put, heard and argued.
  More than that, it would be justifiable for UEFA to eliminate England—if the team qualifies tonight for the quarter finals—only on grounds of crowd safety or that of the team or its supporters. Otherwise, as the England manager clearly said, disqualification would not only be disproportionate, but could produce a reaction, and perhaps greater antagonism. I therefore hope that UEFA will not go down that road. I am sure that there is some internal politics, but even if there were not, the Football Association has done everything that it was asked to do. I have not read a single report of a ticket holder behaving badly. If the team, the management and the supporters have behaved respectably, it would be inappropriate for our team to pay the price for the recent events.
  What else should others do? The Sunday People, reporting Saturday's match, carried the headline "Hun Nil". That is unhelpful. An opinion piece in The Mirror referred to the so-called good old days when
  They used to bite yer legs, have beards and moustaches, wear Cossack after-shave and live on steak and chips with lager.
  It clearly had nationalistic overtones. As my noble Friend Lord McNally said in another place yesterday, the tabloids and, sometimes politicians, are responsible for hyping

  185
  xenophobia and thus aggression. In that context, some of the language, particularly of Conservative Members in recent months, on immigrants, foreigners and asylum seekers has fuelled those who are tempted to be xenophobic or racist.
  I am as patriotic about England's success as anybody else. That does not mean that I do not respect the Germans' or the Turks' right to be patriotic, or even that of difficult countries such as Yugoslavia. They have as much right as us to be patriotic and we have a duty to respect that right. I am reminded by your presence in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the home internationals give us plenty of chances to learn that we can be patriotic while respecting the fact that we have four countries in one kingdom. Some of us have learned that, and enjoyed the ups and the downs of it for many years.
  If we pander to prejudice and raise the anti-foreigner game, we will pay the price. When such behaviour becomes frequent, it produces reactionary results in politicians. It leads them increasingly to call for liberties to be taken away and to support increasing numbers of bans on people who have no convictions. It leads to a new consensus, which is not liberal or progressive, but reactionary, restrictive and inhibiting. We would be taking away the liberties of the many because of the actions of the few, to use the Government's phrase in a different context. Some may rejoice in that. Fascists like the idea of continually curbing people's liberties. They like aggressive societies that curb liberties and kick people's heads in. I believed that we had got rid of such societies in Europe; we fought world wars to prevent them.
  We must provide the other alternative and respond responsibly. We do not want a society in which we say, "I'm sorry, but we can't do anything about this." The Government are trying to respond to difficult issues; but we all have responsibilities as well. It is not somebody else's problem; it is the responsibility of every single one of us. From now on, whenever we witness the sort of behaviour that we are discussing, in our families, friends, peer group, neighbours and constituents, we must say that it is unacceptable. We can thus begin to change the cultural attitude of the past decades. It can be done, and we must lead. In the meantime, it would be wrong for the English team to pay the price for a problem that goes back far longer than this tournament, these matches or the events of the past few days.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I begin by saying to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the House needs contributions such as his. The points that he made, some of which I shall echo, are precisely the points that the House and the country need to address. The subject is not one to be treated lightly. It should not be treated as a political football, so to speak.
  I have a great deal of time for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), but I must say to her—although I can say it only in her absence, as she is no longer in her place—that I expected something better from her in her speech. I do not say that in a carping way; I genuinely admire the right hon. Lady, particularly for her stand on other issues that are close to my heart, such as animal welfare.
  186
  This is a time when we need to present a united House—a united front—to the problems facing us. This is the first time that I have spoken in the House as a Back Bencher since the general election. I was looking forward to making a speech, although perhaps the House did not share my anticipated enjoyment. I would have preferred to choose almost any other subject for my contribution, but obviously I want to comment on the impact of recent events on our 2006 world cup campaign.
  The crisis faced by English football is the greatest in its long, proud history. We gave the game of football to the world. That is one of the things that we have been saying in our 2006 campaign—we gave the game of football to the world, and we want to welcome the world to the home of football—yet here we are, on the threshold of becoming pariahs in the world of football. As I said, at such a time, football and the country need the parties in the House to present a united front. Playing politics with the subject, by either side, is dangerous and plays into the hands of those who wish us ill.
  I understand UEFA's anger. After all, trouble breaks out only when the English fans turn up. It does not happen with the Scottish fans, or those from other countries. There are some difficulties with Turkish fans at present, but if we look back over recent years, it has tended to be the English fans who turn up and spoil the party. We can well imagine UEFA's anger, but I repeat what I said in an intervention—that it was extraordinary that Lennart Johansson, the president of UEFA, and Gerhard Aigner, the general secretary, did not see fit to call in Geoff Thompson, the chairman of the Football Association, and Adam Crozier, the chief executive, who were in Charleroi. I have just come back from Belgium. We had a meeting there last night, and I came straight back. I did not know that there was to be a debate, but I came back because there are other matters to be dealt with to keep the 2006 campaign on the road.
  I find it extraordinary that the chairman and chief executive of the FA were not called in. UEFA officials talk about the family of football: I have heard them say time and again, "We are the family of football." When problems arise, they should call in the family to discuss them. There may have been a similar outcome, but at least the FA would have been party to it and would have been consulted in reaching it. I find UEFA's behaviour extraordinary. I trust that it is due to nothing more than clumsiness and political naiveté, rather than anything more sinister.
  UEFA has no right, any more than anyone in the House, to play political football with such a serious issue as that now facing English football. I say to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), that I find it extraordinary and unacceptable for an international football federation to attack the policies of a sovereign Government. It is not for UEFA to do that. It is entitled to its opinions, but the way that that was done is unacceptable. I use that word yet again. It is a matter for the affiliate associations—in this case, the English Football Association—to maintain contact with the national Government. It is not a matter for an international body. UEFA is not the United Nations. Although I understand the anger that it felt, which we all share in the House and which all sensible people share, UEFA must be careful not to exceed its brief.

  187
  I hope that the telephone call which I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to Lennart Johansson, and the call which I think was made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to Gerhard Aigner, will restore decent relations between the British Government and UEFA. I repeat that, on this occasion, UEFA exceeded its brief in some measure.
  As always, I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. She seemed to attach little blame—perhaps I missed it—to the drunken yobs who disgraced football and the nation at Charleroi. In the end, that is what it is all about. The blame cannot be passed on to the Government or the football authorities; in the final analysis, we are all responsible for our own conduct. It is no good those people saying, "Well, I didn't realise that the Government had not passed strong enough legislation. Had they done so, perhaps I wouldn't have acted as I did."
  Whenever I listen to the "Today" programme, everything always seems to be the Government's fault. Perhaps it is because I am now on the Government rather than the Opposition Benches—who knows?—or perhaps I am now listening properly. I begin to wonder whether, if those who blame the Government turned up late for work, they would tell the boss, "Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment did not give me my wake-up call and I blame the Government for making me late for work." That is a caricature, but, increasingly in this country, when a problem arises we pass the blame on to the Government and ask what they are going to do about it.
  The Government can and must take action. Perhaps they should have done more, but, ultimately, responsibility for the scenes that we saw was entirely that of the yobs who created the mayhem and havoc. We must ensure that, whatever points we make in this House, we never lose sight of that fact.
  The right hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hon. Member."] Perhaps one day he will be a right hon. Gentleman, but it will be for long service on the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Like you.
  Mr. Banks: Yes, like me. It is surprising how fast time goes when one is enjoying oneself.
  The hon. Gentleman touched on a crucial point: there is a yob culture in this country, and it goes beyond football. It dispirits me to say that. We saw who those people were and we have, more or less, a picture of them—they are overwhelmingly young, white, male, drunk, xenophobic and racist. Short of locking up everyone in the country who fits that description—unfortunately, they might be a minority, but they are a substantial minority—we cannot deal with the problem in terms of football or any other part of our society, sporting or otherwise.
  The hon. Gentleman was also correct to say that we see the same sort of people in town and city centres around the country every Saturday night. Our town centres are being turned into no-go areas for respectable citizens. As the hon. Gentleman said, we also see them in Spanish and Greek resorts. How often have we felt ashamed to be
  188
  English when we have been there ourselves and seen the loutish behaviour of those street trash? That is exactly what they are.
  We must do more than simply get angry about the problem. We must try to analyse how it happens, rather than simply throw blame backwards and forwards. We must try to find a sophisticated way of dealing with it because, ultimately, these people are a problem for us all.
  There is no easy legislative way to deal with these people. No one could describe me as a governmental brown noser, but I accept what the Secretary of State has said. I believe that we could have done more. In the end, however, one has to hope that people will behave better—that they will behave like responsible human beings. I get angry when people say that they behave like animals. Animals never behave in that way, so let us not use that description again.
  We must now consider what further measures we can take. However, the House and the country must accept that, every time we take more measures, we scoop up people who are innocent. Further measures will also make injustice apparent to the innocent people who are caught up and will take more civil liberties away from us. We are English and proud to be English, but, frankly, those yobs who call themselves English have no right to use such a description of themselves. We must deal with them in the strictest and strongest way possible, while never losing sight of the fact that a much deeper-seated problem in our society encourages those people and fosters their behaviour patterns.
  As I have said, we all have responsibility—the Government, football and, obviously, the House. But who are these people? They did not just appear. There are times when we feel that they are aliens, and that we do not want to share the planet with them, let alone a football ground, a continental street or a continental beach. Nevertheless, they have mothers, fathers, sisters and girl friends. It is about time that the families of these people started to put some pressure on them as well.
  As I would never have behaved in such a way, I suppose that what I am going to say is a bit of a nonsense; but I can imagine what my father's reaction would have been if the front page of a newspaper had shown a picture of me coming back, having been kicked out of Belgium, Ireland, France—which hosted the World cup in 1998—or any other place in the world where we have caused mayhem in recent years. No one can exonerate himself, and the families of those yobs and thugs have a responsibility to deal with them. No one can walk away and say that it is someone else's fault—that the Government, or football, should do something about it.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey also made a good point about the language used by the tabloids. They, too, are responsible. Let me make it clear that I do not blame them, but it is a fact that language such as "Hun Nil!"—which was the headline on the front page of the Sunday People after the result—is racist and offensive. It encourages contempt for foreigners.
  That is where all this problem stems from. As kids at school, we were brought up with the idea of the British empire—the empire on which the sun never set. There was a subtext: the English—I say "the English" because of the way in which we responded to the Scottish, the Irish and the Welsh—were the master race, created in

  189
  God's image, and God had made a big mistake when he created foreigners. As mature individuals, we can deal with that; it need not infect us. I am afraid, however, that some of those semi-educated mindless yobs do not see it that way.
  No doubt whoever wrote that headline thinks that it was just a bit of fun, but unfortunately it is necessary to be reasonably intelligent to appreciate humour. In fact, I do not find the headline particularly funny—I find it offensive—but to the weak, febrile individuals of whom we are talking, it constitutes almost a justification for the things that they do. "We beat the Hun": how offensive that is to Germans, both those in Germany and those who live and work in this country.
  The Sun used a similar headline: "Heroes 1, Jankers 0". No other newspapers in the world describe football results in that way. Indeed, the language of most countries does not include insults to foreigners, and certainly does not include the range and complexity of insults that ours does. We cannot even engage in a debate about the European Union without using tabloid language and talking about Frogs and Krauts. As I say, I do not blame the tabloids, but tabloid journalists cannot write racist rubbish of that sort and then write editorials or features condemning the behaviour of the very people whose attitudes they have, in my view, fostered and, in certain cases, encouraged. No doubt I shall be ripped to pieces by some of the tabloid editors tomorrow. It will not be the first time, and I am sure that I can live with it. We know that what I have said is true, and it is about time that tabloid editors and journalists realised that they cannot whip up such behaviour and subsequently condemn it. They must realise that they are part of the problem.
  Even if we are booted out of Euro 2000, that will not solve the problem of the yob culture described by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and me. We, as a country and as a Parliament, must come together to seek ways of dealing with what I consider to be a cancer in our society. Toughening up legislation is one way, but securing changes in attitudes and putting peer pressure on these people is another matter.
  We have dealt with the problem on our domestic football scene. That is the irony: all this only happens when people go abroad. The manifestations are here, but they are controlled in a far more organised way. When these people go abroad, all the restrictions are off, and they revert to the crude and nasty type that we recognise. We tackled racism inside our grounds through campaigns but, in the end, the thing that stops people is peer pressure. People used regularly to jump up and start to make strange monkey noises at a black player on the pitch, even at the club that I have supported for 50 years, Chelsea. "We are the only white club in London", used to be the song. British National party and National Front literature was openly sold on the terraces. We have dealt with that through peer pressure. In the end, that is what will deal with the yob culture in this country.
  I want to say a few words about my work, as all Members know—well, I hope that they know, because if they do not I do not know what I have been doing for the past 12 months—as the Prime Minister's special envoy. I have felt many times that I have become that legendary Member for 30,000 ft. I have been working with others on England's campaign to ensure that England hosts the
  190
  world cup in 2006. I stood down as Sports Minister precisely to represent the Government on that campaign; I felt that it needed my full-time attention.
  My heart sank when FIFA, the world governing body, changed the decision date for 2006 from March to July. Immediately, I thought, "Oh no. My God. Euro 2000." I knew that there would be problems, not least in England qualifying. We managed to scrape through, but I thought, "We will have real difficulties now." It is a tragedy because—I do not say it in any jingoistic way; all the FIFA members have acknowledged it—we have the best bid. England has the best bid in terms of our facilities, the atmosphere in our grounds, our stadiums and the excitement and passion of our football. It is such a tragedy that that might all be wasted if England is thrown out of Euro 2000.
  As I have said, if that happens it will be difficult to see a way forward. If the decision had been taken, as it was originally meant to be taken, in March by FIFA, frankly, we would have won. We could still win, just, but it now depends on what happens not on the pitch, but on the streets of Charleroi tonight and, if we get through against Romania, when we play Italy in the quarter final.
  It is a tragedy. It is not special pleading for myself—I have a job and I will just carry on doing other things. But a sizeable chunk of my life and the lives of a whole group of people, young men and women, have been spent working on the campaign for four years. Those people include Sir Bobby Charlton, Sir Geoff Hurst, Alec McGiven, the campaign director, and all the people at the Football Association. They have made a great effort. We should be proud of what they have all done. I do not want that effort to be absolutely wasted by what has been done to our reputation in Charleroi and elsewhere.
  It still is a wonderfully well-organised, effective and professional campaign. Incidentally, we spent no more money on our campaign—none of it is Government money—than the South Africans and Germans have spent on theirs. I hope that they are not enjoying our predicament, but how much more optimistic they must now feel about their chances than they did only a couple of weeks ago. If anything goes badly, we will be in real trouble.
  Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman think that all this is very sad for the children of this country who love soccer and go out and play in divisions, championships and tournaments? One of the great memories of my childhood was England winning the world cup at home. Our children will be deprived of that because of a bunch of real oafs and yobs.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman makes that point and gives his age away because some of the newer Members probably were not even born when England last won the World cup. I hope that I do not go to my grave before we win it again. I might add that trying to host the world cup in 2006 was not some foolproof way of ensuring that we won it again. We can still win it, but we will probably have to do so somewhere else. The hon. Gentleman was right in those comments.
  Part of the campaign for 2006 is "England's Welcome to the World", which involves inviting 12 young people under the age of 15 from every one of the 203 countries that are affiliated to FIFA—which has more affiliated

  191
  countries than the United Nations does—to come to England for two weeks, with up to four adults and carers, to stay in our homes and to share the experience of the 2006 World cup in England. It is an imaginative scheme, and it has received great acclaim around the world. The world cup is about our children and about passing on the legacy. We are still talking about the 1966 world cup, which many people still consider to be the greatest sporting event that this country has ever enjoyed. Some people, however, would say that it goes even further than that.
  As I said, this is a very sad day for English football. I am hoping that, if things go well today and on Saturday—if we beat Romania—we shall be able to get things back on to an even keel, proceed with our game—with our clubs in European competitions and our national team in international competitions—and keep our world cup 2006 bid on the road. However, if that does not happen, I know who I will blame—that street trash and dog dirt who disgrace not only the name of English football, but this country itself. They will never, ever, be forgiven.
  5.41 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) on his return to making Back-Bench speeches—his have always been extremely good and entertaining. He is, obviously, going to continue in that tradition. I also pay tribute to him for the work that he has done for football. I agree very much with his comment on yob culture—which I shall return to later in my speech.
  There seem to be essentially three questions in this debate. The first is whether the Government should have introduced legislation to widen police powers particularly to prevent suspected football hooligans from travelling abroad. In my view, the Government should have done that. They seem to support the principle of doing so, or at least that is my understanding of their rather convoluted letters and statements.
  As everyone, I think, must recognise and know, only the Government could—or, arguably, should—introduce that type of legislation. We all recognise that such legislation would be controversial. Liberty still condemns even the prospect of such legislation. It is absurd, however, to think that one can leave such legislation to a private Member, even one who is as skilled as my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). It was also incredibly weak for the Government, with their overwhelming majority, not to pass such legislation.
  I have no doubt whatsoever that such legislation is a Government responsibility. I do not think that either the Home Secretary or Lord Bassam—who, extraordinarily, is the Minister in charge of football safety—has done himself any great credit with the argument that such legislation was defeated by Conservative Members. Yesterday, the Home Secretary was at least cautious on that bogus argument. Nevertheless, I listened yesterday as Lord Bassam repeated the argument on radio.
  It is tempting to write off Lord Bassam as a one-man argument for reform of the House of Lords, but the issue goes rather wider than that. I find it difficult to take seriously the Government's intent on football safety as long as he is left in charge of it. Frankly, I think that the hon. Member for West Ham would do a much better job of it than Lord Bassam could.
  192
  About two years ago, the Government were warned about the prospect of what has now happened. When I moved new clause 10 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, I said:
  Last week, the vast majority of this country felt shame at the behaviour in Marseilles of so-called English supporters—who comprised only a small number of the English people in Marseilles, and in no way represented genuine English football supporters, any more than they represented the people of this country itself.
  Nevertheless, we saw for ourselves the damage that was done and the violence that was committed.—[Official Report, 22 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 710.]
  Two years later, all those words could have been used about the events in Belgium. The Government have had two years to act, but they have failed to do so. Regardless of whether it would have had an impact on recent events, the Government should have introduced legislation—that is their responsibility.
  The second question is whether such powers would have had any significant effect on the events at the weekend. I was not happy with what the Home Secretary said, because he seemed to choose his words carefully on that subject. He said:
  Of the nearly 400 now being deported, just 15 have been identified as previously known hooligans and of those, one has had a domestic exclusion order against him.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 37.]
  That led the Home Secretary to the conclusion that legislative changes, of the kind that the House has had before it recently, are not necessary. However, had the House known then what the Daily Mail reported today—that 80 of the first 200 deported had criminal convictions—that would have changed the flavour of our reaction to that statement.
  There is a great difference between being told that only 15 of those deported from Brussels were previously known hooligans and learning that some 80—if not more—convicted criminals were among them. That was revealed not by the Home Office, but by a national newspaper. We should have known that yesterday and it is not necessary or justifiable to point to the criminal conviction rate on average among young people generally. The Home Secretary went on to conclude that legislation was not required and would have had no impact in any case.
  Mr. Ivor Caplin rose
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he has been present for the debate.
  Mr. Caplin: I have been here for some of the debate. I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to clarify his point about criminal convictions, and whether they were football related, because that is an important aspect of the legislation promoted by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
  Sir Norman Fowler: With respect, that is why I made the point about the hon. Gentleman not being here for the relevant part of the debate, because I was talking about convictions that are not related to football. We have been exploring in the debate to what extent the commission of an offence not related to football can have an impact on an exclusion order to prevent a person from going

  193
  overseas. That is what my new clause was about two years ago and it is the issue that the Home Office has been considering for the past two years.
  I am unconvinced by the case made by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that some of the people involved were undetectable first offenders. That is not a sustainable point. The Home Secretary made the same point, somewhat disingenuously, when he said that barristers and engineers were among those who were arrested. Doubtless they were, but they were not typical.
  The Home Secretary said yesterday that it is not because of a lack of resources that hooligans are not detected but, if a power had existed, the police might have investigated more thoroughly. My conclusion is that such a power could and would have prevented some of the hooligans from travelling to Europe.
  My third question is whether all our aims in this area can be achieved exclusively through new legislation. My answer is the same as that given by the hon. Member for West Ham and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). They cannot be achieved simply by legislation, and that should be recognised.
  We should also recognise that there is no single remedy. We need a series of measures if we are to tackle this problem, because it is fanciful to believe that those who riot overseas lead a blameless life in this country, and that the only time that they ever commit any offences at a football match is when they go overseas. I do not believe that.
  I strongly agree with an article, not in one of the Conservative supporting newspapers, but in today's Daily Mirror, by Paul Routledge, who wrote that what happens in our British towns and cities, with
  Young English males … gripped by an urge to get drunk and violent
  is then exported over the channel.
  It is fashionable to be a lout. And to be a lout abroad is very heaven.
  That is the kind of issue that we now have to tackle.
  There is an additional factor. Not only are those concerned, as the hon. Member for West Ham put it so well, yobs and louts, but they believe that they can get away with it. That is the missing part of what the hon. Gentleman said. They feel that their actions will have no consequences in terms of the law.
  Here I do not make a party point. Over the 30 years that I have been in this House, under different Governments, various parts of the law of this country have fallen into disuse—not minor parts, but major parts. For example, traffic laws are now substantially unenforced. Everyone knows that that is the case. It is to the benefit of the aggressive and to the disbenefit of the young and the vulnerable, who are injured and killed as a result.
  Crimes such as burglary receive little police attention, and crimes such as breaking into vehicles receive next to no police attention. I shall give just two small examples. On Sunday, I returned to my car and found that the car parked behind mine had the door ominously wide open. I rang the police to report a break-in. I got an operator, but was initially told, "I'm sorry, sir. The line is engaged. Do you wish to hold?" as if it were like reporting to Direct Line Insurance. There was no interest, although
  194
  ultimately, when I got through, there was some. When I had my own car broken into in my constituency, there was no interest whatsoever in that deeply boring crime, apart from my being given a report number for my insurance.
  I use those examples to make the point. This has happened over a period of years—from the second world war onwards. It has happened at no particular time, but over years, and I am in no way trying to make a party point about it.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that over recent years, right up to the present, in the west midlands as elsewhere, the number of burglaries and the number of vehicle crimes has continued to go down?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am delighted to hear that that is so. I can only report what happened. If the Minister is trying to make a party point, he will concede that the investigation of burglary and of car crimes is very cursory. There is no conceivable question about that. I am not blaming the police. They clearly have a list of priorities and have to go for the first priority. In my own street, there has been a murder and that has been investigated with tremendous use of resources by the police. I am not trying to make any party points.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he had been in Parliament for over 30 years. I previously worked for a shipping company, and I saw some of the damage and disastrous vandalism caused by football fans who travelled on ships over those years. I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman and his party did not leave it to companies then to select whom they took on their ships. Why did they not introduce legislation to prevent those people from travelling abroad on those ships when they were in charge?
  Sir Norman Fowler: It is always dangerous to make a party point, because then one is countered with another straightforward party point. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go down that course, I would reply that I have strong memories of the 1980s, when we sought to introduce various restrictions to try to deal with football hooliganism and were strongly opposed.
  I am not trying to ascribe blame to one party or another, least of all to the police, but if people think that they can break the law without consequence, some will do so; if people with good jobs—banisters and engineers—feel that they can get drunk and riot, some will do so. It is a simple consequence of the fact that they are not prevented by detection.
  In both cases, part of the solution is to raise the prospect of detection and conviction. That could have most effect on the kind of people that the Home Secretary has been talking about—the people with good jobs who we assume do not want to lose them. If greater detection is part of the solution, the House had better face the prospect that there is no alternative to having more police. We are under-policed, and our cities and towns are now paying the price. Many would argue that the country areas are also paying the price.
  The Home Secretary used to talk about zero tolerance. He went to New York to look at the situation there, and I followed in his footsteps. I spent a few days with the

  195
  New York police looking at zero tolerance. There is no question but that the policy of zero tolerance—it is not a particularly good description—had a dramatic effect in New York. New York is infinitely better than it was five or 10 years ago, when it was a drug-ridden and crime-ridden city. What the police have been able to do has been built on the fact that an extra 7,000 police were put into place before the policy was introduced. That is why it was successful; that is why they were able to have an impact; that is why they were able to bring crime down. It has been the success of the New York police, but a success based upon more police.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: We have debated police numbers in the House to a great extent. Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that the football hooliganism that we are debating today is a direct result of the reduction in police numbers in the years 1992 to 1997, when he was a member of the Government?
  Sir Norman Fowler: That is one of the silliest arguments that the Government have put forward. Why does the Minister choose the years 1992 to 1997? Why do Ministers use the argument about 1992 to 1997? Do they not normally use the argument about 18 years of Tory Government? Do they not normally go back to 1979? The hon. Gentleman knows extremely well why he does not go back to 1979. It is because, if he takes the years 1979 to 1997, the period of the last Conservative Government, he finds that it ended with over 15,000 extra police. The Minister should not make these cheap party political points. That is a silly point, one that the Home Secretary makes, and nothing makes me angrier or more irritated, because it is completely spurious and foolish.
  Mr. Clarke: I had no intention of raising the subject in this debate at all, but the right hon. Gentleman put on the agenda the question of police numbers in relation to soccer hooliganism. I am responding to his point.
  Sir Norman Fowler: If the Minister is not going to talk about police numbers, crime prevention or the relationship between what hooligans do overseas and in this country, he should get another job, as he is not making the right connections. He asked about the period 1992 to 1997—five years of the 18 years of Conservative Government.
  Mr. Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: No, as I am sure that the Minister will wind up the debate and avoid mentioning this subject. When the Conservative Government left office, there were 15,000 more police officers than when we came to power. When I was in government, there was no question about the priority given in the 1980s to recruiting more police and adding to police strength.
  Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the recent Audit Commission report, which criticised the Government for reversing the trend evident throughout the Conservative years, including the period 1992 to 1997, when the numbers of police constables and front-line police officers rose? The report found that, under this Government, the number of officers had fallen.
  Sir Norman Fowler: That is right: police numbers have fallen, not risen. However it is defined, the problem
  196
  must be resolved, but my argument goes beyond police numbers. If we want to prevent people from going abroad and causing problems, we must do something at home. As the hon. Member for West Ham said, we must ensure that peer pressure is exerted on those responsible, but we must also increase detection rates. That would have a preventive effect on crime in general, and especially on the type of crime that is the subject of the debate.
  If I needed any confirmation of my determination to vote for the Opposition motion, the Minister has provided it. To cope with the problem that we face, we must give the police more powers. The responsibility for doing that lies with the Government and Home Office Ministers. At the same time, we need to have more police officers.
  The Government have failed to introduce the necessary legislation, and to recruit and retain police officers. Above all, they have shown themselves to be deeply complacent, and that is why I and my colleagues will vote for the motion this evening.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Derek Twigg: It goes without saying that I condemn the shameful violence at the weekend, for which there can be no excuse. It is a pity and a disgrace that it should have overshadowed the victory over Germany for which we have waited so long.
  The debate is not about political point-scoring, but I want to consider what the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, and to look back at the record of the Conservative party on this matter. The previous Conservative Government introduced four Bills relating to football violence and disorder—the Public Order Act 1986, the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Football (Offences) Act 1991 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It took them seven years to get their first Bill on to the statute book, yet they have the cheek to tell us that we have not done enough to solve the problem of football violence. They had four attempts and still failed to achieve anything. It is a disgrace that Conservative Members should have the cheek to accuse the Government of not doing enough.
  I should add that, even after the 1994 Act was passed, we saw the disgraceful scenes in Dublin in 1995. What did the Conservative legislation achieve to stop that sort of violence? We will take no lessons from the Opposition, given the disgraceful way in which they dealt with the problem.
  How many times have hon. Members and Ministers debated and condemned violence by English football fans abroad? It is a terrible and continuing problem that has no easy solution. We must work out how to reduce and control the problem, and how to deal with the perpetrators. The newspapers print many intellectual, soul-searching articles asking whether the problem is an English phenomenon or whether it has to do with the loss of empire or with the fact that we won two world wars. I do not know the real reasons behind the problem: all I know is that the violence is wrong.
  There is no getting away from the English mentality which says that we are superior to other nationalities. According to that way of thinking, it is all right to go abroad, abuse the people there and subject them to violence. That violence is directed not only at males but at women and children as well.

  197
  As has been noted, the people involved come from a drunken yob culture that is not acceptable. A sizeable minority of people believe that it is all right to go abroad and behave in that way. That is a disgrace.
  There are many positive things to be said about our country, and some negatives. The same is true of all countries, and I do not understand the English conviction that we are superior. English people should be able to behave properly in other countries, and the violence that takes place is a disgrace.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am mistaken, but I understand that the Belgian authorities assured my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that they would deal severely with people who were violent or disorderly. The measures used against them were to include prosecuting them, bringing them to trial and, if necessary, jailing them. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that assurance was given?
  One of the biggest problems is that English yobs abroad think that they can get away with crimes of violence and abuse because they know that they will not be sent to jail. Some will not even be formally arrested, and the ones who are sent to jail are released quickly. I accept that people should not behave violently in the first place, but should not strong action be taken by the authorities in the countries concerned?
  That strong action has been supported by my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and by former Tory Ministers, but it never seems to be taken: people are merely removed from the streets and then sent back home. We can deal with the problem by making sure that people know that they will be arrested for what they do, and that they will be shamed. That would deter many of them from violent behaviour, and I shall be interested in my hon. Friend's response to that proposal.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned Colonel Blickie, the man in charge of the Belgian operation. He made the worrying admission that many of the people arrested over the weekend had not committed any offence. It is a double tragedy if genuine, peaceful football supporters who have done nothing wrong have been caught up in the problem. I do not blame the Belgian authorities for a problem that is caused by English people, but I hope that everything is being done to deal with the violence.
  Many political points have been made in the debate, but certain elements have been missed. For example, an important factor in the violence is that strong beer has been sold all day to fans. Why was that allowed to happen? I am not sure that the weaker beer and other options available in Holland would have prevented trouble if England had played Germany there, but elsewhere strong beer was on sale all day and people were able to get drunk on it.
  Moreover, why were large crowds allowed to gather in one place? Containing trouble in one area may be a good tactic, but the question remains an interesting one.
  Flashpoint matches take place in the British domestic game, and the game against Germany was considered to be just such a match. In this country, games between Liverpool and Manchester United, Newcastle United and
  198
  Sunderland or Celtic and Rangers are often played at midday or in the early afternoon. That stops the all-day drinking that causes people to get fuelled up and cause trouble, and it seems to bring about a significant reduction in violence.
  I know that there is no excuse for the behaviour that we have seen, and that international matches are often required to fit in with the television schedules, but why has not the same approach been adopted with those games? Again, I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on that.
  I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) talk about people who, although they have not been convicted of football-related offences, may have convictions for other offences. The right hon. Lady said that we need to safeguards but, when challenged, would not say what those safeguards should be. We need to know what those safeguards would be, otherwise the right hon. Lady's remarks are just the usual rhetoric from the Conservatives attacking the Government.
  If a yob is shown on video to be throwing a chair or a bottle or punching someone, that seems pretty good evidence to use to prevent more of those people from travelling abroad and stopping more trouble taking place, as many right hon. and hon. Members have suggested in this debate. I think that there are ways of ensuring that there is evidence that can and should be used in the future.
  The Home Secretary pointed out that it is easier to stop people at the point of entry than to stop them leaving. That important point should be taken up more strongly with our counterparts in Europe, and I hope that something will be done about it.
  It is important to football in general, and to football in this country in particular, that we host the world cup. This is the home of football—we invented the game. We have excellent stadiums and facilities, the support is fanatical and everyone who comes here from abroad comments on the good atmosphere at matches. It would be a travesty if we lost the opportunity to host the world cup because of what has happened recently.
  Our police, authorities and organisations seem much better able to control any disorder or trouble. We have a strong record in dealing with trouble efficiently. I am not sure that there would be any trouble—there were some incidents at Euro 96 but, overall, with the Germans in Manchester and the Dutch and French in Liverpool, there was a good atmosphere. People enjoyed themselves, and it was a good occasion. I am quite sure that that could be recreated. I hope that we do not lose our opportunity to hold the world cup here because of the behaviour of these yobs.
  This is a very important issue—it causes great national anxiety, and it shames the country. My constituents are absolutely sick and tired of it. There are measures that can be taken, but it ill behoves the Conservative party to suggest that the fault is the Government's. We must all share some of the blame but there is no simple remedy for solving the problem totally. The previous Government had at least four attempts during their time in office—
  Mr. Heald: Five.
  Mr. Twigg: The hon. Gentleman says that it was five. Even so, they failed, so they should not give us any

  199
  lessons. We will do what we can to solve the problem, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will do all that he can to bring about some change in this area.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: We had the Home Secretary's statement yesterday, and we are having this debate on the Floor of the House today, against the backdrop of a minority of thugs and louts going abroad and committing violence and mayhem once again. It is a national humiliation, and it drags the reputation of our national sport into the gutter.
  We must look at what more can be done to minimise the disgraceful behaviour that we have had to suffer over the past two weeks or so. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said, very little can be done with regard to first-time offenders. There will be terrible problems preventing them from doing anything because, by definition, they are unknown to the authorities. That applies not simply to football-related incidents, but to any walk of life and any crime. However, I believe—a point to which I alluded in earlier interventions on the Home Secretary—that there is one area of the law which should have been tightened up by now and which must be tightened up as soon as possible. I refer to the omission in the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 concerning the removal of passports for unconvicted football hooligans in certain circumstances.
  I never envisaged the state using such a power willy-nilly and irresponsibly. During the proceedings on my private Member's Bill, I understood the Government to agree with me 100 per cent. that there should be a power in law to allow unconvicted individuals to have their passports withdrawn before an international match or championship if an application was made to the courts by the police and it was proven to the court's satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds for believing that if those individuals travelled abroad, they would engage in acts of violence, vandalism or hooliganism.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: I am sorry but I will not, because time is limited.
  A number of people have referred to civil liberties. I will give two examples to show that that principle is already engaged in our legal system. Anyone on bail pending a court appearance or a court case—who is, of course, innocent until proved guilty—can be asked to surrender their passport, and must do so. Secondly, in difficult child custody cases, if a court suspects that a child may be taken beyond the jurisdiction of a British court, the passport of the parent can be withdrawn, although no crime has been committed and no crime may be committed. Those are examples of taking action prior to an event whose consequences would be difficult to rectify.
  I believe that it would have been right to provide the power to withdraw the passport of unconvicted individuals, under certain circumstances and when a court was satisfied. I also believe—even more strongly today than I did when I asked the Home Secretary about it yesterday—that that measure should have been taken in time for Euro 2000. So that there could be no
  200
  misunderstanding, I specifically asked the right hon. Gentleman in an intervention today whether it was right that about 30 to 35 per cent. of people who have been arrested in Belgium over the past two weeks have criminal convictions—not for football-related offences, but simple criminal convictions. The Home Secretary said yes.
  No doubt, when we have the proper information and data in the coming weeks, we will be able to study this in greater detail. However, I suspect that a number of the individuals who were arrested have been convicted of crimes of violence, possibly even hooliganism or other anti-social behaviour. Those would have been valid grounds for a court to withdraw the passport of such individuals so that they could not travel abroad. Even though such convictions were for criminal offences and were not football-related, it shows that such people are minded to commit acts of violence during a football riot in any town or city in Belgium or Holland.
  The Government have made a mistake by not using their majority and legislating for those powers, after the Queen's Speech, in time for Euro 2000. That is what I thought was their intention when I discussed the matter with the Home Office during the Committee stage of my Bill. I said that I would not proceed with that proposal because I was fearful, for the reasons that I outlined to the Home Secretary, that it might mean that the whole Bill would be lost last summer, either in this House or, more probably, in another place.
  I urge the Government, even at this late stage, not to forgo taking those powers. If I have understood my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) correctly, the Opposition have pledged to assist the Government in allowing those provisions to come into force in time. It is important to have that power for future football matches and, as the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, we desperately want to host the world cup in 2006. Events of the past two weeks have meant a setback, but we must prove to the world not only that are we determined to do all that we can to minimise and tackle football hooliganism—there is a common will about that on both sides of the House—but that we are backing our words and good intentions with positive acts. That would be a good act, and a signal both to the community outside this place who engage in football hooliganism and to those who will determine the awarding of the 2006 matches that we are determined to do all that we can within the law.
  I find encouraging and welcome some of the comments made by the Home Secretary in his statement yesterday about international bans on convicted hooligans under the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, and the courts then adding the extra penalty of banning those individuals for up to a maximum of 10 years from travelling abroad to football matches.
  That legislation was passed last summer, and I suspect that no Member taking part in the debates that preceded its enactment doubted that the courts would ruthlessly use the powers that it provided when football hooligans were convicted. We seem to be finding—it is still early days because the Act has been in force only since September last year—that the courts are reluctant to use the powers. There is anecdotal evidence to that effect. For that reason, I was encouraged by what the Home Secretary said about tightening procedures and encouraging the courts to use the powers that are available to them more extensively.

  201
  I am not a lawyer, but I think that I am right in saying that one of the most effective and immediate ways to try to redress the tardiness of the courts is for the Lord Chancellor immediately to issue guidance to them reminding them of the powers in the Act and telling them that they are expected to use those powers unless there are exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons for them not to impose international bans.
  It would be a travesty, and a snub to the House, if the courts were to ignore the intention of Parliament, which is clearly specified in the 1999 Act. We are not talking of a section that is badly drafted and open to doubt. To strengthen the courts' resolve, the Act states that if the courts do not impose a banning order, they must in public state their reasons for not doing so. That part of the Act shows that we expected the courts to use the powers vigorously. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will remind the courts of that.
  If the courts do not start doing what Parliament intended, I urge Home Office Ministers to give serious consideration to taking the next step forward and saying, "All right, we have tried. The courts are reluctant to do what Parliament wants, so we shall make it crystal clear to them by introducing a mandatory sentence for anyone who is convicted of a football-related offence. There can be a longer time for those who are convicted and sent to prison, and possibly a shorter time for those who are not imprisoned, to differentiate between the seriousness of crimes and the punishment that ensues." That must be done.
  We shall not overcome or minimise the problem solely by means of legislation, although legislation is an important weapon in the armoury. However, something that I was reading today struck me as perhaps worthy of consideration, and that is naming and shaming football hooligans. I cannot claim credit for the suggestion. The practice started in the United States about 15 or 20 years ago, and it related to other crimes. Local newspapers would name and shame individuals who engaged in certain criminal activities or anti-social activities, to bring peer pressure to bear on those involved to improve their behaviour and social attitudes. It may be worth considering that local newspapers should name and shame those individuals who may not have a conviction but who have been arrested or deported from a foreign country, or who have been apprehended in this country, for hooligan or anti-social behaviour.
  The Home Secretary has mentioned the extent to which middle-class people, such as lawyers and accountants, are being arrested for football hooliganism in Europe. Most people do not want to be named and shamed. They do not want their anti-social, drunken or violent behaviour drawn to the attention of their neighbours and the members of their local community. If naming and shaming could bring peer pressure to bear on them to take a more responsible attitude, it would be worth a try. That would be in addition to all the other measures that are needed and those that are set out in the legislation.
  I hope that tonight, and for the rest of competition, we do not see a repetition of what we have had to put up with for the past two weeks. I am not confident that that will happen, but I hope that it will. Sadly, we are dealing with a minority of morons, who do not have the intelligence to
  202
  behave rationally: it must be the big stick rather than the carrot if we are to get them back on track and stop the nation being repetitively and constantly shamed.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Martin Salter: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this sadly topical debate on football hooliganism. I am grateful also to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for giving me just enough time to make my contribution. However, I caution against the effectiveness of naming and shaming. Some of the so-called fans of whom I am aware who are involved in organised football violence do not consider naming to be shaming. Instead, they consider it to be a badge of honour. That is the awful truth with which we must deal.
  I am not an impartial participant in the debate. I speak as a long-term football supporter and as a regular attender of football league matches for more than 30 years. I recently had the honour to be made vice-president of Reading football supporters' club, something of which I am particularly proud, as many people in Reading well know. However, I am ashamed to admit that, over the years, my town has produced some especially violent football hooligans, whose behaviour was highlighted in the recent BBC documentary entitled "Maclntyre Under Cover".
  I was in the Chamber yesterday during the exchanges following the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Euro 2000, and on the disgraceful scenes of violence and mayhem that occurred over the weekend at Charleroi. With a few exceptions, the quality of the contributions did none of those present any favours. For example—I say this in all kindness—what does the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) know about football fans? How many football matches has she attended? Does she seriously think that football violence started when the Government were elected? Does she recollect events at places such as Turin, Heysel, Malmo and Dublin, which occurred when Conservative Governments were in power? It is not a party political matter. It is a damning indictment of the conduct of a significant minority of fans and of a rich seam of thuggery towards, and contempt for, people from other nations.
  I say to the Government that it is a bit lame to try to pin the blame for the failure of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill promoted by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford on the actions of the lunatic right on the Conservative Benches, when many Labour Members had reservations. The lunatic right, or the extreme right, have a responsibility, but that is not only in this place. Its role is in the public promotion of racism and xenophobia, which is, sadly, a hallmark of certain aspects of English football.
  I have spent a good deal of my political life working with anti-racist and anti-fascist groups in fighting organised and violent racism. I pay particular tribute to my colleagues from the Searchlight magazine for their invaluable work in exposing the strands of evil that link the extreme right wing in British politics with organised violence, both on and round the football terraces and against black, Jewish and Asian members of our community.
  I return to our home-grown thugs from Reading. I am talking about Danny Walford and Andy Frain. We learn much about what motivates these people from the

  203
  company that they keep. Frain is a member of Combat 18—the name is derived from Hitler's initials—which provides bodyguards for holocaust apologists and other right-wing, racist speakers. He runs—I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—with the Chelsea headhunters, and he has been prosecuted for the dissemination of Ku-Klux Klan literature. He dreams, I fear, of establishing a white homeland in Essex. Walford, as the documentary showed, glories in violence. He has no political affinity with any one football club, and he boasts how easy it is to organise nicks and riots on the internet and via mobile phones.
  Instead of trying to score political points, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and some of her colleagues would do well to consider how their own public comments and actions affect the situation. They have helped to fuel the atmosphere of racial intolerance that lies at the heart of the problem.
  In case any hon. Member doubts that the major problem underlying football hooliganism relates to the behaviour of English fans abroad rather than at domestic competitions, it is worth quoting House of Commons Library figures for arrests and attendances at football league and premier league matches. There has been a welcome reduction in football-related violence. In 1984–85, there were 7,000 arrests from 17 million attendances. Last year, the arrests fell to more than 3,000 while attendances rose to 24 million.
  That is a tribute to the behaviour of the vast majority—the genuine football fans—and the efficiency of the police and clubs in tracking, identifying and banning known troublemakers and those involved with organised football violence. What happened in Charleroi at the weekend had absolutely nothing to do with football, and everything to do with alcohol-fuelled racism and xenophobia. How else can one explain comments made by a spokesman for the National Criminal Intelligence Service, who said on Sunday:
  The bottom line is that there were a lot of young men aged between 18 and 30 who get drunk and like to cause trouble. They talk about provocation but to these people someone speaking German is considered provocation.
  That is a damning indictment.
  Practical measures could be taken to isolate the thugs. I shall not use up time by listing them, but they offer only part of the answer. We must address the whole conduct of our politics. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, who condemned the street trash who have done so much to blight our national game and our reputation as a footballing nation.
  Mr. Tony Clarke: I appreciate that we are pressed for time but does my hon. Friend agree that we are hindered in tackling the street thugs and trash by the media's comments about Kraut-bashing and analogies with the second world war? Does not the media's little Englander attitude, which also, sometimes, expresses itself among those on the Conservative Benches, hinder our progress towards being less anti-European and not such little Englanders?
  Mr. Salter: I agree. Sections of the tabloid media must bear their share of the responsibility.
  We have proved that football hooliganism can be tackled effectively at home. The challenge is to take further practical steps to prevent known hooligans from
  204
  travelling to games abroad. We must also tackle the racism and xenophobia that spews out filth in the back rooms of certain of our political parties, in the pages of some of our tabloid media and in far too many of the hearts and minds of young English males masquerading as football fans.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent debate on this important subject. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) talked about the yob culture and its effect on the innocent. We must all realise that the hopes of many people, particularly the young, are tied up with the England football team as they face Romania tonight. I recently attended a football tournament for under-13s at which there was remarkable enthusiasm for Euro 2000 and for seeing England and our best players do well. Most of the nation will be glued to television, hoping that England will do well. We hope that our players, who have done rather better than usual so far, will be able to progress.
  However, at the same time there is the dread thought for the people of Belgium and Holland that the violence might return. In an article earlier this week, a journalist put the matter rather well, writing:
  The politicians ought to front up in the midst of a riot to see for themselves what it feels like to be intimidated, abused, roughed up, vomited on, stolen from and, in every sense of the word, offended. Then, perhaps, they would not talk quite as much about civil liberties and nets, but instead find the guts to eradicate this plain yobbery.
  Both sides of the House have offered strong condemnation of the oafs, yobs and louts who commit these acts and humiliate our country.
  As a Conservative, even I feel that having our Prime Minister snubbed by the Belgian Prime Minister when he attempted to hold a meeting in front of the television about football hooligans displays the depths to which our country has sunk. We are being shamed and humiliated. In 1998, at the world cup in France, we saw a glimpse of the same thing. At Marseilles, a dreadful riot involved English fans, but it was not only the English who were to blame. At Lens that year, German fans went on the rampage, beating a gendarme almost to death.
  There were, however, different reactions in England and Germany to those shocking events. The German reaction was to take emergency measures to try to stop that happening again. In England, within a week of the incident, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) tabled amendments in Committee on the Crime and Disorder Bill in which he sought to make it possible, in the cases of those known to be likely to cause riots, damage and insulting behaviour, for a court, on the application of the police, to be able to say that, for specified persons and matches, the risk of allowing travel would be too great. There is a civil liberties price to pay, but if refusing someone the ability to go to a football match abroad for three weeks every four years will save England the humiliation that we all feel at the actions of oafs, it is not too high a price.
  My right hon. Friend made a suggestion back then with which most commentators agree. The same suggestion has been made on both sides of the House tonight. The Home Secretary said two years ago that he would sit down and work on the idea. I know that he has been busy; many problems have crossed his desk since then, and we have

  205
  all heard the numerous statements that he has had to make about them. However, he has spent two years sitting down and working on it, and nothing has emerged. That is unacceptable. He had an opportunity in 1998, in 1999 and again this year before the European championships began to pass legislation through the House with the support of the Opposition. He refused to do so.
  We need to know whether the Home Secretary supports legislation. If he does, when will he do something about it? He has slurred the Opposition disgracefully by saying that it is all our fault. The fact is that he holds the job of Home Secretary and he is the man who can introduce legislation with unlimited time. He has failed to do so. The outside world—Europe, the football supporters and others—criticises him, and is right to do so. UEFA and the football supporters are entitled to say that the right hon. Gentleman has not done enough because he has not done enough.
  It is feeble for the Government to say that they gave 1,000 names to the Dutch and the Belgians and that they sent warning letters to half that number, telling them that it would be rough for them if they went to Holland or Belgium. The German reaction to a similar problem was to turn back 2,500 people. They visited each of them and either marked or took away their passports. The Germans compiled good lists of the likely football hooligans, and set up border controls to ensure that those people did not get through. The result was that only 31 German, but 800 England, supporters were arrested.
  The same problem was identified in 1998, but there was a different response. As both countries had that problem in 1998, it would hardly be surprising if people in UEFA wondered what had happened since then. They might compare the proactive approach of the Germans, which resulted in far less criminality by their supporters, with the lackadaisical approach of the Home Secretary, which led to 800 English people being deported from Belgium—the figure is rising all the time.
  To say that this national humiliation is the fault, among others, of UEFA—as did the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—he criticised alcohol, which is fair enough—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that he did not criticise UEFA, but he did. He said that it was quite wrong of the organisation to make that threat, but the fact is that UEFA has had enough. His speech deserves little comment—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) says that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey beat me once, which is true but not relevant to this debate.
  Several hon. Members—including the hon. Member for West Ham—pointed out that tabloid language was most unhelpful. We all agree on that. It was said that alcohol is a problem, as, of course, it is. It was said that the yob culture was all wrong and that we must do something about it, but no one knew quite what we could do.
  We were left with some clear conclusions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. He said, first, that the Government had not done enough to change the law and that, secondly, a culture had developed in which yobs and oafs could get away with their behaviour. He pointed out that the number of police had been cut dramatically by the Government.
  206
  My right hon. Friend said—fairly—that he was not trying to make a party political point on the matter, but I want to do so. The Government have cut police numbers by 2,500; there are 3,500 fewer specials and 90 police stations are closing every year. In such an atmosphere of slack law and order, it is not surprising that people think they can get away with it.
  My right hon. Friend said that there should be a policy of zero tolerance towards football violence. During the years of Conservative Government, constant attempts were made, year after year, to meet the problems as they emerged and to clamp down on them—the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) criticised that. The reason that the hon. Member for West Ham could say that we had sorted out the problems in the grounds was partly due to the action of the FA—of course—and partly to that of the clubs. However, in large part, it was due to measures passed in 1985 by the Conservative Government to crack down on alcohol abuse in grounds and to the Public Order Act 1986, which created new offences that cut down on the abuses that had been occurring.
  The Football Spectators Act 1989 for the first time imposed restrictions to prevent people from going to international matches by compelling them to attend police stations during the match. The Football (Offences) Act 1991 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 were passed. As each problem emerged, the Conservatives passed laws to ensure that it was addressed.
  No one claims that all the problems can be solved at a stroke. As soon as one is resolved, another emerges. However, we need a rigorous attitude. We need a Government who are prepared to take action when it is needed. Football violence and yobbery is a national curse; it must be dealt with rigorously. It is no good for the Government to say that they will look at the problem and then to fail to do so. It is no good for them to say that they will solve the problem one day and that they have held another seminar—as the Minister almost always does—sweet words, but no action. We need a commitment to legislation now. Will the Minister tell us that he will introduce legislation and, if so, when? We want action and we want it now.
  The Home Secretary said that only a small number of those who were deported were known to the authorities as football hooligans. What about the football hooligans we know about? Eddie Curtis, the head of the hooligan spotting team, said that most of the main undesirables—the criminals on the NCIS list—had got into Holland and Belgium. I do not want to read more headlines, because the Government have failed to curtail the liberties of such people for three weeks every four years. Let us have some action—let us solve the problem.
  6.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): We have debated a serious subject, and I genuinely thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for tabling it. I welcome the debate. We have heard some outstanding speeches, and I hope that no one will be offended if I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who made an excellent speech, and to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who made a first-class speech. I shall not follow him in his speculations as to the motives of UEFA

  207
  and so on, but I am sure the whole House wishes him well in his efforts with the 2006 world cup. I pay credit to the intelligence with which he so powerfully addresses the issues.
  It was a shame that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) descended to crude party politics.
  Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way, give way."] When the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) spoke about small numbers, I thought that he might have been referring to the fact that, at times during the debate, only one, two or a maximum of three Opposition Back Benchers were in the Chamber. I wondered whether that reflected a general unhappiness with the stance taken by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
  As the violence two nights ago demonstrates, the key point is that international football hooliganism is not the exclusive property of English troublemakers. However, the record of English hooligans outstrips that of all their competitors. We have all noted, in various ways, that we are heartily sick of their boorish, offensive, threatening and sometimes violent behaviour.
  Several hon. Members rightly asked what individuals could do in such circumstances. To avoid individual responsibility is absolutely wrong. Individuals must take responsibility for their acts; they must behave in a sportsmanlike way; they must focus on good conduct and respect others. That is critically important, as several hon. Members pointed out.
  The question being debated today is what the Government can do about those matters. That is a legitimate subject for debate, and I shall respond with three points. First, I shall describe what the Government can and should do operationally. Secondly, I shall set out what can be done legislatively—referring especially to the issues raised in a good speech by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who has a fine record of fighting for such matters. Thirdly, I shall discuss the general social and cultural issues that were raised by several hon. Members.
  On operational matters, policing is extremely important. The achievement of effective policing of football in this country and our expertise—manifested during Euro 96 and in our domestic games—are powerful. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) used those points to make a good argument for holding the 2006 world cup in this country. We want to lend that expertise to other countries. We discussed with Denmark, Holland and Belgium how policing could be strengthened throughout the continent. That is important. I had two meetings with Turkey's Minister of the Interior to discuss those matters in relation to his country's policing issues.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—who is not in his place—asked about intelligence. The police devote extensive resources to keeping close tabs on the most active football hooligans—often at great risk to the officers involved. The House will understand that I cannot reveal details, but outstanding work is done by spotters and intelligence liaison officers, and the whole House will share in paying tribute to the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
  208
  It is worth highlighting the work done in the European Union—by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State, in Tampere, and the Prime Minister in Feira—to ensure closer liaison between criminal justice systems: not something the previous Government would have done. We are committed to effective joint working, which is critical in this, as in so many other respects. An important element is the international agreements with Holland and Belgium in particular and the operational discussions. Our police have a strong and positive relationship with forces in the rest of the European Union; the UK ports operations, which we continue to intensify, is an example of how joint working operates. I am sure that Opposition Members wish to encourage that work, which is critical to everything that we do and to which we are greatly committed.
  We have done a lot, but much more needs to be done at every turn—including the international environment, both judicially and operationally. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire and for West Chelmsford focused on legislation. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that our legislation is already among the toughest in Europe. There is an argument as to whether Germany's laws are tougher in some respects, given that country's different political and judicial traditions, but Britain is at the cutting edge of tough legislation. The Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 built on the work of the previous Government and reflects a consistent tradition across all parties of seeking to strengthen effective legislation against hooliganism.
  I acknowledge that more can be done. The passports legislation associated with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford was the subject of a party knockabout in today's debate, but we are looking at doing more in an appropriate way. My right hon. Friend referred to merging domestic and international banning orders. We have made announcements about stopping people from returning to the Low Countries and partnerships with clubs. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham also made a number of specific proposals for strengthening existing legislation.
  I assure the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, who put his points extremely effectively, that we are prepared to legislate—including on naming and shaming. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) made important points in that respect. Key to that is that any legislative change that we might have made would have had little or no impact on events in the Low Countries at this time.
  Mr. Heald: Does the Minister accept that it is necessary to have the sort of football behaviour order that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) proposed two years ago? If so, when will one be introduced? Is it correct—as was said by Eddie Curtis, head of the spotting team—that most of the undesirables are in Holland and Belgium as we speak?
  Mr. Clarke: That is not the information we have from NCIS. Mr. Curtis made it clear that he is deeply frustrated with the failure of the courts to use their existing powers to impose banning orders—a point also made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. We are considering tightening or extending legislation—including football behaviour orders. There is plenty of scope for partisan knockabout, but any serious review of recent events in the

  209
  Low Countries and what must be done shows that legislative change of the kind that preoccupies the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire would not have resolved the current situation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made effective points about yob culture. Twenty six per cent. of men born in 1968 had convictions by the age of 24, and nearly 10 per cent. had convictions for violence against the person, sexual offences or robbery—an appalling picture of the society that has developed and that reflects convictions that did not necessarily have anything to do with football violence. We have to turn that around.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned law and order in the community. Other issues that need to be addressed include the way in which young people are brought up, xenophobia in the media, law and order, education and alcohol. One Opposition Member sneered about seminars that bring together people dealing with alcohol-related issues, but over 18 Tory years nothing was done. Alcohol is a big factor in crime. The alcohol industry, retail and licensing trades want to work on that connection—and the White Paper on licensing addresses some of the issues. Alcohol is important is looking for the motive force behind crime—almost as important as drugs, in some respects.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and others mentioned peer pressure and families. Individualism is to be found in some people but—I am not making a party political point—the phrase, "There is no such thing as society" was extremely damaging. It might be argued that it is okay to say, "There's no such thing as society," but I fundamentally disagree. Government policies on crime reduction partnerships put in place by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the initiatives in education—by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—in health and in other areas are aimed at building communities and getting people to work together in an acknowledgement that society is important.
  There are no quick fixes, but we must work in that direction rather than in the opposite direction that we inherited. That will be difficult, but we are introducing a series of measures focused on all the issues that I have mentioned. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to vote against the Opposition motion—which is all about short-term, blame-culture fixes—and to vote for the Government amendment, which identifies the real problems and supports measures to change society in a way that will eliminate football hooliganism in future, which is what we all want.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 363.

  Division No. 235]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Bercow, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Blunt, Cnspin

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Body, sir Richard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Boswell, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  210

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Loughton, Tim

  Brady, Graham

  Luff, Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Burns, Simon

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Butterfill, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Madel, Sir David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Maginnis, Ken

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Maples, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Mates, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  (Rushcliffe)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Collins, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Norman, Archie

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Paterson, Owen

  Faber, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Prior, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gale, Roger

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Garnier, Edward

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gibb, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gray, James

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Green, Damian

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spring, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Streeter, Gary

  Hammond, Philip

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hawkins, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tredinnick, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Johnson Smith,

  Whittingdale, John

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Key, Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Willetts, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Yeo, Tim

  Letwin, Oliver

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Lidington, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Ainger, Nick

  Ballard, Jackie

  Ainsworth, Robert (CoVtry NE)

  Banks, Tony

  Allan, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Beard, Nigel

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ashton, Joe

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  211

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davidson, Ian

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Berry, Roger

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Best, Harold

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Borrow, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Drew, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brake, Tom

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Breed, Colin

  Edwards, Huw

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Efford, Clive

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fisher, Mark

  Burden, Richard

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Flint, Caroline

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  (NE Fife)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Galloway, George

  Cann, Jamie

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caplin, Ivor

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Casale, Roger

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Caton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gidley, Sandra

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Chaytor, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Chidgey, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hancock, Mike

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hanson, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Coleman, Iain

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Corston, Jean

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cotter, Brian

  Hill, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Hood, Jimmy

  Crausby, David

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  (Copeland)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hurst, Alan

  212

  Hutton, John

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  (Welwyn HaWeld)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  (Wolvem'ton SW)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Keetch, Paul

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Pearson, Ian

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pendry, Tom

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kidney, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Pond, Chris

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pound, Stephen

  Laxton, Bob

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Levitt, Tom

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Livsey, Richard

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rapson, Syd

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lock, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McCabe, Steve

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  (Makerfield)

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roy, Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McFall, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Salter, Martin

  McNulty, Tony

  Sanders, Adrian

  MacShane, Denis

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWalter, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  McWilliam, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Singh, Marsha

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Miller, Andrew

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

  Mitchell, Austin

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stevenson, George

  Moriey, Elliot

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  213

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Tyler, Paul

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Tynan, Bill

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stringer, Graham

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Watts, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Webb, Steve

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  (Dewsbuiy)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Willis, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wills, Michael

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wilson, Brian

  Timms, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Wood, Mike

  Touhig, Don

  Woodward, Shaun

  Trickett, Jon

  Wooias, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  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 wholly deplores the violence in Belgium during the Euro 2000 competition perpetrated by United Kingdom citizens, and condemns the irresponsibility and criminality of those involved; welcomes the good co-operation between the British police and National Criminal Intelligence Service with the law enforcement agencies in Belgium, the Netherlands and France by which a large number of individuals with banning orders from football-related convictions against them have been prevented from travelling to Belgium and the Netherlands; strongly supports the many measures already taken by Her Majesty's Government, the police and other agencies; and endorses the further measures announced by the Secretary of State for the Home Department yesterday.

  Government Planning Policy
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Archie Norman: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the apparent intention of Ministers to ignore the recent vote by members of SERPLAN to limit the number of new houses built in the South East and to 'punish' members of SERPLAN for taking that decision; calls on Ministers to abandon their attempts to impose overall figures for new housebuilding on regions of the country; deplores the Government's failure even to meet its own targets for new development on brownfield sites; regrets the continuing decline of towns and cities and, on almost the first anniversary of the Rogers Report, the Government's failure to address the vital issues of urban regeneration, or growing internal migration and the drift from towns and cities to the countryside, or homelessness; and calls upon the Government to halt the decline of the cities, bring forward measures to protect greenfield sites and the Green Belt, and take steps to return more power to local communities to decide planning and housebuilding priorities.
  First, I am sorry that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions cannot be with us this evening. I understand that his mother is not well and I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members in saying that we fully understand the reasons for his absence. We wish his mother well and hope that she has a speedy recovery.
  Several of my colleagues may believe that the timing of this debate is not ideal but, from the point of view of the residents and councillors in the south-east, it is apposite as the Serplan period of consultation has just concluded. As a result, our debate on an issue that has caused people in the south-east great anxiety and tension will give the Minister for Housing and Planning an opportunity to discard all his speeches in previous Opposition day debates on the matter and put to one side the well-thumbed copies of statements of denial and all the talk of moving away from predict and provide. It will enable him, for the first time, to come clean on how he plans to answer the clear response that the councillors and residents of the south-east have given as part of the Serplan process that he created.
  Mr. Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Norman: No, I want to make progress.
  The issue is a formative one for people in this country, not just in the countryside or the south-east, but in the inner cities, the north and the south-west. Conservative Members believe that the Government's policy on house building is a national folly. As my distinguished predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) put it, it is like
  taking a carpet knife to an old master.—[Official Report, 2 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 103]
  The policy perpetuates the vicious circle of migration from the north, the loss of countryside for ever, congestion on our roads and the decline of our inner cities. Quite simply, it is the wrong houses in the wrong places.
  Mr. Michal Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend accept that not only is that happening in the

  215
  south-east, but people in the west midlands are equally disturbed about the use of the green belt? Does he not think it an outrage that some 5,000 new homes will be built in south Staffordshire, while brownfield sites in the centre of Birmingham, Walsall, Wolverhampton and other towns remain undeveloped?
  Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct and, as ever, is a potent voice for the west midlands.
  Against the background of a perpetuating cycle of declining inner cities and the concreting over of the countryside, the Government claim, as the Minister has done in previous debates, that they have decentralised the process; that an extra 200,000 houses can be built in the south-east with no additional use of greenfield sites; that, incredibly, there is no such thing as north-south migration, and that the new housing in the south-east is needed for the sons and daughters of the existing population. Those claims fly in the face of all the facts.
  Mr. Martin Salter: What would the hon. Gentleman say to people in the Thames valley who are looking forward to the extra 200 police officers that are to be provided and to the Police Federation, which is saying that the price of housing is so high that those police officers will not be able to afford to stay in the Thames valley? Does he accept that his party's policy is a recipe for running down our public services, and that we need to provide affordable housing for key public service workers, such as police officers, firefighters and health workers?
  Mr. Norman: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that it is for his constituents to decide how many houses are built in the area. We have the confidence to allow local people to make such decisions because we know that they will be right. I do not know whether he has the same confidence.
  The Government have erected a facade of deception, are juggling the numbers and are responsible for overbearing centralisation. Most bizarre of all is their claim to have decentralised and to have moved away from predict and provide. They claim to have moved to a five-year planning horizon, when the local plan for every council in the south-east is worked out on a 10-year basis and we all know that major infrastructure and development projects need a more distant time horizon.
  The real process is one of protracted negotiation, and of the Government predicting more houses and pressurising councils to offer up the maximum, as they pressurised Serplan to do. They issue diktats when local councils do not meet central needs. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in the Minister's petulant response to the Serplan consultation and the absurd claims that he made only last week in environment questions that Conservative Members have made this a party political issue. We all know, as he should, that the councillors and residents of the south-east have made this an issue because they deeply resent his overbearing approach.
  Some councils made their position clear long before the Serplan process took place. Jane Pitman of Hertfordshire county council said:
  Anything above what Serplan recommended is unacceptable.
  216
  Richard Payne of Bedfordshire county council said:
  In Bedfordshire we have taken heed of Government advice and consulted every district council, parish council and stakeholder with an 80 per cent. response. Almost all of these were totally opposed to the type of increase that the Government is proposing.
  Those councillors were speaking for local residents long before the Serplan process took place.
  All we are saying is that local residents and councillors of the south-east should be listened to first, and if the Minister is at all sincere about moving away from predict and provide, he will respond by telling us that he will take their views into account.
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The hon. Gentleman referred to councillors in Bedfordshire who expressed concerns about additional housing requirements some time ago. Can he tell the House whether they objected in 1996, when the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, required Bedfordshire county council to provide 2,100 extra dwellings?
  Mr. Norman: It has been an astonishing feature of the Minister's response, every time that the House has debated this matter, that he refers to past issues. He is now responsible for planning; he devised the Serplan process, and he, not we, said that the Government had moved away from predict and provide. He has come up with the shallow pretence of decentralisation. I could go on quoting local councils for a long time, if he wishes, but he is answerable, and it is for him to tell us whether he will listen to the views of local people and councils. He will have an opportunity to do so in a moment.
  Is not the truth that the process has been a charade, and the idea that we have moved to a five-year process of review and monitor is complete nonsense? Councils now preparing their local plan are working on a 10-year basis. The Minister is interested in consultation only as long as the answer is yes, and he is interested in decentralisation only as long as councillors will do what they are told.
  I know that the Minister has said that he was misreported but, for the record, will he clearly retract his comments in The Sunday Telegraph and in radio interviews to the effect that Serplan's views would be ignored and that councillors who had objected to his proposals would be punished? Will he apologise to the residents and councillors of the south-east?
  Mr. Raynsford: I will not retract those comments because I never made them. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I assured him in the House last week that I was grossly misrepresented in The Sunday Telegraph. I have always said that we will listen to the views of Serplan and others, and I am only sorry that he did not, in the normal custom of the House, accept that assurance and that he has carried on peddling this nonsense.
  Mr. Norman: Of course we accept what the Minister has to say, although it is not what The Sunday Telegraph had to say. That is a matter for the Minister and The Sunday Telegraph. However, he has a chance to respond today and to say not only that he was misreported but what he is going to do about this issue. The consultation process is closed. He has a chance to say that

  217
  he will take all views into account and that he will cease his bullying tactics. He can then demonstrate that he is sincere about decentralisation.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman retract, and apologise for, the grossly insulting comments that he made about my constituents in Toxteth during his visit to Liverpool yesterday? Or was he misquoted?
  Mr. Norman: I am delighted that the hon. Lady raises that matter because it gives me the chance to point out, as I will demonstrate later, that building executive homes in the south-east perpetuates the migration from the inner cities in the north. When I was in Toxteth and in Kensington, which is also a deprived area in Liverpool, I said that it is a tragedy that over the past few years the Government have put so much money into building fortress-like houses and buildings in deprived areas, that they cannot now afford to provide adequate community policing. That means that the crime level in Liverpool has risen by 3 per cent. in the past year and that during the three years of this Government, the number of policemen on the beat in the city has declined by 160.
  Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend think that it is perfectly reasonable to doubt the Government's bona fides when they say that they will listen to Serplan's complaints, given that they not only refused to listen to Sussex, but turned their back and told Sussex that it should jolly well have as many houses as they said? Sussex took the Government to court, but they went ahead. Why should we believe that they will change their mind now?
  Mr. Norman: My right hon. Friend speaks with great authority on the subject, and the Minister will want to respond directly to the point he makes later. This is not just a matter of decentralisation; even on a central view, the Government's policy is wholly wrong.
  As the Minister has said, his own projections show that 70 per cent. of the new household requirement for the next 20 years is for single people. Most of them are elderly people, living alone. A further 10 per cent. approximately is for single parents, who are much in need of affordable housing. They want to continue to live in the towns and cities where they have always lived, yet there is no evidence that the process that has been embarked upon of building 50 per cent. or more of the houses on green fields in the south-east will deliver any such result.
  Serplan recommended that 40 per cent. of the new housing should be affordable, but the Minister ignored its recommendation in his guidance. Only two months ago, Shelter stated that it was concerned about the inadequate provision for affordable and social housing in that guidance. Only a week ago, homelessness figures were published showing that priority homeless cases are at the highest level for the past four years. Far from providing homes for the elderly and less-well-off, which is the real challenge and real need, the policy will deliver identikit executive homes—the same type and design in Yorkshire
  218
  as in Kent, in Suffolk as in Cornwall—and it will leave the elderly, the less able and single people behind in the inner cities.
  Mr. Peter Bradley rose—
  Hon. Members: Tory gain.
  Mr. Bradley: Looking at some Opposition Members, I think that Tory Regaine would be more to the point, especially in the case of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). What are the right houses and where are the right places for them? If the hon. Gentleman allows local authorities the discretion to take their decisions without national guidance and they refuse to accommodate those houses, what steps would he take to ensure that housing provision was made for those who need it most?
  Mr. Norman: The right houses are those that local people decide on under an obligation to provide for local needs. We believe that many local authorities in areas of economic expansion in the north as well as the south will decide to build more houses because they want to fuel expansion for their local employers. We will trust local people to take the right decisions, properly informed by the resources of central Government.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Norman: I shall not give way because I want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). She made the mistake of referring to migration from the cities of the north and urban renewal. Not only are the wrong type of houses being built, but the process will perpetuate the cycle of urban decline and the loss of green fields. There has been much contention about the facts, and the facts about migration from one region to another are less than clear. The Deputy Prime Minister has stated that he does not believe that migration from the north to the south is an issue. In his statement on the Serplan consultation, he said:
  Let there be no doubt that demand for additional housing in the south-east is not the result of massive north-south migration, but mainly the result of migration within the south-east, particularly from London to surrounding towns and villages—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 864.]
  The figures show that the actual pattern is one of migration, as we all know, from the cities to the countryside, from the north and midlands to London and from London to the south. The arithmetic is complicated. [Interruption.] Before Labour Members jump in, let me share some basic facts with them. Between 1991 and 1997, net migration from the north was 114,000 people. Net migration to the south-east was 132,000, and net migration from London was 32,000 to the south-east in 1997. There is a clear pattern, which we all recognise because we see it on the ground, and those hon. Members who have constituencies in the north will recognise it, too. People are moving out of the cities into the countryside, from the midlands to London and from London to the south-east. It is simply nonsense to say that migration from our cities is not a major problem—it is.
  Two thirds of the new houses to be built in the south-east under the Government's policy will be occupied not by single people but by families; not by

  219
  people who live in the south-east, but by people leaving London. That gives the lie to the Minister's claim that the proposals are about accommodating local people. In The Independent of 13 June, he said:
  it is about housing for the sons and daughters of existing residents, and people who are essential to the local economy.
  What complete nonsense. His own projections state that the requirement is not for those sons and daughters; 70 per cent. of it is for single people, most of whom are elderly. We know the track record—executive homes are being built, more than 60 per cent. of which have three bedrooms or more. Sons or daughters indeed.
  Does the Minister think that all the new houses in the two new towns in world-class countryside in Devon, in Cambridge and in Ashford, which will treble in size, will be occupied by sons and daughters of the people of Ashford, Cambridge, Plymouth or Exeter? That suggestion is simply ludicrous and untenable. We know that it is not true, and he knows that it is not true. If he thinks that, he must explain how Ashford can treble its population without importing people from London and the north. We all know that it is complete nonsense.
  The problem exists not only in the south, but in the cities of the north. I could take hon. Members to areas in the centre of Leeds that are 3 miles from a thriving commercial centre—the boom town of the north—where there are housing estates with empty homes, with 50 per cent. of people unemployed and with little local investment. I could take them to places 10 miles out of Leeds, such as Thorp Arch or Boston Spa, and show them executive homes being built on green fields so that income-generating families can move out of the centre and travel back in their cars to work. Is that sustainable? What has that to do with the Government's transport strategy or inner city regeneration?
  We have to accept that, if executive homes are built in the countryside, there will be a declining school roll in the city, or an empty house left behind in the most deprived urban areas. Shops will be boarded up in deprived areas, as I saw in Toxteth only yesterday. Crime rates will rise in the inner city, as I saw in Liverpool only yesterday, and another commuter will have to travel back in from the green fields, adding to congestion.
  The defining characteristic of the great cities of Europe—Paris, Dusseldorf, Munich, Amsterdam, Madrid or Barcelona—is that they are residential cities in which families want to live and work. The consequence of Government policy is that it will perpetuate the trend of people migrating from the cities. The hard fact is that until we get entrepreneurs and developers to apply their ingenuity to redeveloping brownfield land first and greenfield land only last, we will never create the accommodation that income-earning people need to stay in this country's great cities.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he mentioned my constituency. Does he accept that, if new homes are not built in Cambridge, many of the sons and daughters of local residents will not be able to afford houses there? Is he aware of the work of Professor Christine Whitehead, who has said that Cambridge will be unable to sustain its labour force after the middle of the decade or provide affordable houses for its workers?
  220
  That has been backed up by staff from Addenbrooke's hospital, who are concerned about the difficulty of recruiting workers into the health service in my region.
  Mr. Norman: As the hon. Lady knows, the point about Cambridge, which the Minister will accept, is that the extra houses built there will not only be for sons and daughters of local people, but for people migrating out of Leicester, Birmingham and other parts of the country, and they will leave behind a declining population. She might like to tell us whether she is in favour of redefining the green belt and building on the green belt around Cambridge. Is the Minister in favour of that, too? Is not the truth behind the Government's determination to build so many houses on green fields that the green belt is no longer sacrosanct? Is that not exactly why the Minister now says that the green belt is no longer safe under Labour and needs continual revision and redefining?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has made another completely false allegation. I have never said that the green belt is not safe under Labour. Will he withdraw that completely unfounded allegation?
  Mr. Norman: The Minister says that he has not said that the green belt is not safe under Labour; during his speech, he will have plenty of chances to explain what he meant when he said that the green belt has to be constantly redefined and revised. In Cambridge, in Newcastle and in the south-west we see that the green belt is no longer safe under this Government.
  Mr. James Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour leader of North Hertfordshire district council, Councillor David Kearns, recently attacked the Government? He said:
  We feel very let down. The Government claims to be committed to … the environment and regenerating urban areas … now we have them supporting plans to rape 2,000 acres of Green Belt
  around Stevenage.
  Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The rape of Stevenage and the removal of the green belt around it—one of the Deputy Prime Minister's first acts on coming to power—signalled his intentions for the future very clearly.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the green belt and Labour's record on the Cambridge green belt, is he aware that the Labour city council, supported by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), was the authority that pushed for a review of the green belt to free up sites inside the Cambridge green belt for large-scale additional development?
  Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend is correct.
  Mr. Anthony Steen(Totnes) rose—
  Mr. Norman: I want to make progress.
  Mr. Steen: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he give way on that point?
  Mr. Norman: Yes.
  Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend has mentioned brownfield sites. Is he aware that the Government's plans for

  221
  new-build houses depend entirely on building 60 per cent. of new housing on brownfield sites and that not only are the local authorities unhappy about those plans, but that the European Union has ruled that the Government cannot build on brownfield sites if that entails giving a grant to the owners of the land because that would be an unfair subsidy? Is he aware of that problem and do the Government realise that their entire housing policy will be destroyed if that EU ruling is upheld?
  Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend is something of an expert on these subjects and I know that he wants to speak later. As ever, he has made an original and different contribution.
  The price of building in the south-east will be borne not only by the inner-city areas of the north, but by the taxpayer. The south-east is one of the most congested parts of the country and the infrastructure is simply not available to accommodate the 900,000 new houses that the Minister wants to have built there. Building 900,000 new houses implies not only new housing, but new roads, street lighting, hospitals and schools. We estimate that such a number of new houses also implies 2,000 km of new road at minimum, as they would have to be connected to other areas, as well as 3,250 hospital beds, 300,000 school places and a total price tag of £7.7 billion.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Norman: No, I want to make progress.
  However, there is no provision for that investment and no plan to provide for it. The roads are more congested and the railways more crowded than ever. Investment in roads is declining. In the south-west, there are other problems—my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) will want to mention those to do with sewerage—and concerns over water resources. The Government have made no provision for the flood plains of Kent and none for renewable energy. That is not environmental sustainability, but environmental vandalism.
  Incredibly, the Deputy Prime Minister claims that 200,000 extra houses can be built in the south-east with no extra use of green fields. However, the Government give the impression of simply playing with numbers and ratios. As he said in the Frost interview on Sunday:
  People think, "Isn't this about spinning and spinning is about misleading people".
  That is exactly the situation. The Government have claimed that those dwellings can be accommodated through terraced housing and greater density of building. They pray in aid Poundbury, but the hard arithmetic shows that to get an extra 200,000 houses in the south-east the density will have to be 50 houses a hectare greater than that achieved in London itself.
  Mr. Raynsford: No.
  Mr. Norman: Yes, that means the loss of green spaces in the towns and villages. Yes, it means the return of 1960s and 1970s high-rise.
  Mr. Raynsford: Wrong again.
  Mr. Norman: The Minister knows that the targets cannot be delivered in the south-east. He knows that the
  222
  weight of housebuilding is overwhelming. [Interruption.] Instead of shaking his head, when he makes his speech why does not he list the counties and county councils in the south-east that believe that they can achieve 60 per cent. of new building on brownfield sites at that rate of construction over 20 years? Why does not he tell us exactly how that will be achieved and describe the implications of the 60 per cent. figure? What densities will be required to achieve it? Why does not he come clean?
  Fiona Mactaggart rose—
  Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Norman: No, I am about to conclude.
  The challenge for Britain today is to convert existing accommodation for single and elderly people, to rebuild our inner cities, to restore the ownership of neighbourhoods by local people—[Interruption.]—to revitalise local government—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) wish to make a point?
  The challenge today is to revitalise local government and to protect our countryside, yet instead we have the most centralised policy ever, a determination to ignore local views and steamroller local councils—a policy that will perpetuate the decline of the cities and do nothing to address the needs of the elderly and the less well off. The countryside will be concreted over with identikit executive homes. Quite simply, we will get the wrong houses in the wrong places.
  7.47 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's move away from the previous 'predict and provide' approach to housing provision and the introduction of a 'plan, monitor and manage' policy under the new regional planning policy arrangements, including a target for building 60 per cent. of all new housing on previously developed land and the tightening of planning controls on out of town shopping and ending the profligate use of land; supports the Government's policies on protecting the Green Belt and improving the use of all land and preventing piecemeal greenfield development; believes the Government's planning, housing, transport, countryside protection, welfare and economic policies will achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of both urban and rural development; welcomes the Government's continued commitment to sustainable growth, safeguarding the countryside and promoting an urban renaissance; supports the targeting of regeneration initiatives in areas of greatest need and the Government's inter-linked policies for revitalising towns and cities and protecting the countryside; and applauds the Government's aim of giving everyone the opportunity of a decent home and recognises that the doubling of housing investment and other social housing reforms introduced by this Government are creating stronger, safer and more sustainable communities."
  First let me express my appreciation for the thoughtful and kind words of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) about the Deputy Prime Minister's mother. The whole House will join us both in wishing her a speedy and full recovery.
  The choice of this evening's debate—our sixth on the subject in the past three years—is telling. To focus attention on planning and housing when England's football team kick off in a crucial European championship

  223
  match implies either extraordinary stupidity or great political acumen. Could it be that the masterminds of Tory central office were unaware of the Euro 2000 timetable when they sought the debate? That is possible, but even I cannot believe they are so crassly incompetent as not to have realised that tonight the nation would be glued to the television screen—not, I hasten to add, to watch the parliamentary channel.
  If we give those masterminds the benefit of the doubt and assume that they knew about the England-Romania match, what is the object of the exercise? I suspect that two thoughts were uppermost in their minds. The first was to provide a perfect cover for another lacklustre performance by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, whose legendary ability to empty the House will be excused on grounds of football mania. Secondly, having convincingly lost the past five debates on the subject, the Opposition clearly relish the chance to initiate a debate when no one will take a blind bit of notice of what they say. That way, they can masquerade as a concerned Opposition without having once again to witness their hopelessly inadequate case falling apart in the full glare of publicity.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I give way to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are twice as many Conservative as Labour Members present? We regard this subject as significant, whereas we can assume that the vast majority of Labour Members have nothing better to do than gawp at the television.
  Mr. Raynsford: The speech of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells explains the empty seats only too clearly. Hon. Members were driven away by tedium.
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government Whip to go around imploring Labour Members to stay in the Chamber?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. We are considering a serious subject. I suggest that we deal with it seriously. I call Mr. Raynsford.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: It is difficult to comply with your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am interrupted the moment I rise to my feet. However, I shall give way.
  Mr. Robathan: First, will the Minister confirm that Government Whips determine the days on which specific business will be considered, and that they allocated today for Opposition business? Secondly, will he confirm that, apart from a few louts and perhaps Labour Members, most people in this country believe that the subject that we are considering is much more important than whether the English football team beat Romania tonight?
  Mr. Raynsford: We are holding an Opposition day debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that
  224
  the Opposition choose the timing of such debates. His remarks were offensive. I hope that, on reflection, he will realise that it is inappropriate to attempt to compare hon. Members with the louts who have besmirched this country's reputation in Brussels.
  In contrast to the Opposition, we relish the opportunity for a thorough and full debate on the subject, and I hope that, by the end of this evening's debate, the England team will have scored as many goals as us.
  Any serious analysis of the issue must start with the recognition that we face some tough and serious challenges that require thoughtful and mature political responses. We live on a small island; we are already one of the most densely populated areas in Europe, and we have a clear responsibility to protect our countryside and our environment.
  We have an equally clear responsibility to meet the housing needs of our country. They include the needs of the sons and daughters of existing residents who want to continue to live in areas where they were born and grew up, and those of key workers, such as nurses, teachers and police officers, who are essential to vital public services. We must also meet the needs of those who are fundamental to economic success, so that businesses are not prevented from expansion and development by lack of housing for their work force. To pretend that there is an easy way of reconciling the potentially conflicting pressures is facile. So too is the assumption—much promoted by the Opposition since they became an Opposition but different from the line that they took when they were in government—that the problem can be resolved by allowing local councils to put up the shutters and say, "No more housing in our area."
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the Minister consider visiting my constituency? He could then visit residents in Pagham, and hear about their fight to stop a development of 700 houses off Hook lane, or residents in Felpham, who face the prospect of 700 houses in their village, or residents in Littlehampton, who face the building of 1,000 houses in Toddington. If he met those people, he would understand the genuine anxiety caused to people in west Sussex by the amount of building that will happen as a result of the Government's policies.
  Mr. Raynsford: Most housing that is being built is on sites for which the previous Government granted permission. I was trying to make it clear that those who are worried about the countryside and those who are anxious about the housing needs that I outlined are equally concerned. The issue requires balance and thoughtful and careful policies, not facile, knee-jerk reactions.
  Let me quote the words of the last Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in a chapter he contributed to a volume entitled "Town and Country", which was published in 1998. He began by making a robust defence of his estimate of the demand for 4.4 million homes up to 2016. Though what I assume is a typing error in the book alarmingly suggests that he thought that 4.4 million homes would be required by 2006, I cannot believe that that is the case. He goes on:
  If we accept that there is a demand for 4.4 million or more new units we could of course simply refuse to allow the demand to be met. The trouble with that answer is that the people who would be

  225
  hit are those least able to cope with the result, and often the most deserving of a new home. It will not be the richer and more competent members of society, since they can afford to pay the high prices which such a shortage would inevitably produce. It is also quite clear that no government would see this solution as remotely politically possible …
  How prescient of the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that his party has no prospect of returning to government.
  Mr. Gummer: If the Minister had continued with the chapter, he might have noticed that I suggested that the real problem was the location of the houses. Before we build the houses, we say that everybody will live where they want to live. We then build the houses in a specific place. When people move into those houses, we say, "We were right to build them there because that's where they have moved." The Minister should be prepared to ensure that the new homes that are needed are the sort of homes that one-person households want, and that they are not built on greenfield sites, but in our cities and places other than the south-east.
  Mr. Raynsford: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important to ensure that houses are built to meet need. In the chapter that I cited, he rightly highlighted the growth of single-person households. He also said that we should try to build the houses on brownfield sites. That is the Government's policy. His chapter, which was mostly admirable, is far from the policy that Conservative Front-Bench Members espouse. He might reflect on the extent to which the Conservative party in opposition has departed from the right hon. Gentleman's position when in government.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: The Minister claimed that the bulk of demand, which he aims to meet, will come from single-person households. Why have the Government agreed to the rape of the green belt in Hitchin to build 10,000 houses if the bulk of the need is for single-person households? Why are the majority of the houses that are being built for families? That is the question that my constituents ask most frequently.
  Mr. Raynsford: As the right hon. Gentleman knows from our many exchanges about the issue, Hertfordshire county council took the view that it was better to concentrate the development that was inevitable in Hertfordshire in one area rather than spread it throughout the county. That was the basis for the decision. Although the right hon. Gentleman did not agree with it, it was a local decision.
  Mr. Lilley rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am trying to answer his first question. If he waits to see the pattern of development, he will hopefully see the benefits of the policies that we are introducing to ensure mixed developments through a proper mix of housing types and sizes, and affordable and market housing. That is preferable to the proliferation of executive boxes that characterised the planning policies of the Government of whom he was a member.
  Mr. Lilley: I shall clarify the position. The decision to which the Minister refers was not a democratic local
  226
  decision. It was taken by the ruling group of Liberal Democrats and Labour members, with a majority of one. They refused to let the full council consider it; only 14 of the 70-odd councillors in Hertfordshire voted in favour of the measure to which the Government subsequently agreed. Will the Minister now answer the question: why are the houses not for single people—who, according to the Minister, represent the bulk of demand—but for families?
  Mr. Raynsford: It is always interesting to hear people justify their departure from democratic decisions with which they do not agree. It is always possible to find ways of disapproving of the majority view. That is not sensible; it is right to accept that the decision was democratic, whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not. There are democratic decisions that I do not necessarily like; that is life. We should not try to repudiate decisions that we do not like on the tenuous basis that the right hon. Gentleman outlines.
  I was speaking about the article by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. It continued:
  People who see house prices rocket, and who find that they cannot afford the home which they once expected to buy, will take their political revenge.
  Quite so. That is why, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, he was not prepared to stand aside while local authorities sought to make provision for housing needs that he thought was inadequate. Accordingly, he required Kent county council to increase its provision for housing by 2,900 dwellings in December 1996; he required Berkshire county council to increase its provision for housing by 3,000 dwellings in June 1995; and he required Bedfordshire to increase its provision for housing by 2,100 dwellings in October 1996.
  That is what the Conservatives did when they were in government just four or five years ago, and to pretend now that we can do the exact opposite without adverse consequences is facile and utterly unconvincing. Indeed, to pretend that local councils can put up the shutters on new housebuilding without the unhappy results so cogently spelled out by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal in his book flies dangerously close to hypocrisy.
  However, we should not simply stand aside while housebuilders gobble up acre after acre of greenfield land, as they were allowed to do in the 1980s and early 1990s, when the Conservative party was in power.
  Mr. Steen: As I understand it, we are trying to get as many houses as possible built on brownfield sites. I entirely support that. The 17 June edition of Local Government First, which is my regular reading matter, states that the Government's brownfield plans will be hit by a European Union ruling. The article continues:
  The European Commission has thrown Government efforts to encourage development of former industrial "brownfield" sites into disarray.
  The suggestion is that if the brownfield land is owned by a company, European money will constitute a subsidy, which will distort the market, and therefore should not be allowed. Will the Government's policy on brownfield sites be thrown into disarray?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, our policy will not be thrown into disarray, because we are determined to proceed with it.

  227
  The hon. Gentleman will understand that we are in negotiation and discussion about the implications of that European decision, which I will not say we welcomed—obviously not—but we are trying to work constructively, to ensure that our policy objectives can be taken forward.
  I spoke about our commitment to ensuring that we had the policies in place to counter the threat of further insensitive, inappropriate and unnecessary greenfield development. That is why we set out a new agenda in planning policy guidance note 3 to ensure that new housing provision is concentrated wherever possible on brownfield sites; it is why we set a 60 per cent. brownfield target; and it is why we introduced a sequential approach—brownfield first, greenfield last.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been extremely generous. What does he say to the people of Shropshire, where only 40 per cent. of potential sites, including in Telford and The Wrekin, are brownfield? How on earth will the target of 60 per cent. be met?
  Mr. Raynsford: Let me say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, the legacy that we inherited from the previous Government was that no one knew how much brownfield land there was. The purpose of putting in place our national land use database is to identify more of the sites that are potentially available and of which people were not aware. As that exercise continues, I think the hon. Gentleman will be surprised. Anyone can walk around many of our cities and see the numbers of brownfield sites that are not being properly used. Our policy is to identify them.
  Secondly, we accept that 60 per cent. cannot be achieved in every part of the country. In some parts we can do better; in others, we cannot. In London, about 84 per cent. of development is on brownfield sites, but across the country as a whole we are committed to a 60 per cent. target, and we will work for that.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister. I have attended several of the debates on this topic, as he knows, and I keep hearing reassuring noises to the effect that a brave new policy is being applied. Does he accept, however, that after three years that has made no practical difference whatever to the problems on the ground in Rushcliffe in southern Nottinghamshire? The hon. Gentleman will not reopen a structure plan that allocates the bulk of new housing in the county to Rushcliffe, which is almost entirely rural and suburban and has hardly any brownfield sites, and he has disregarded the applications of the city of Nottingham, which wants to develop more of the centre of Nottingham, and of councils such as Ashfield and Mansfield, which would accept more housing. After three years, the practical effect of the reassuring noises is nil. In such circumstances, consultation on our local plan simply consists of arguments about which green fields must be covered by housing.
  Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows from his experience of government that policies take a certain amount of time to have effect. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal changed the policy on out-of-town shopping. The change, which was welcome and which we supported, was introduced in the early
  228
  1990s, but it was not truly effective until the late 1990s, because of extant planning permissions. That applies equally to housing.
  Total disruption would result from stopping every application and starting again from scratch, which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) will recognise is not a practical way forward. We are trying to give local authorities new, tougher guidance in PPG3, under which they are expected to review procedures and to apply the sequential approach.
  The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is nodding. We have discussed the matter at length and he recognises that that is the intention. The policy is having an effect already. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe is wrong to say that it is having no effect, but it will take time to have the full effect that we expect. We are determined to carry the policy forward.
  Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he explain to me and to the rest of the House how he will get his brownfield site policy to work in cities, when many of the cities that he is encouraging to adopt a brownfield site policy have thousands of empty properties going to waste and not being used, many of them standing semi-derelict for several years?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the problem of empty properties. That is very much part of the brownfield policy. We intend to bring into use wasted sites, land and buildings. We support the Empty Homes Agency and we encourage every local authority to put in place a strategy for bringing empty homes into use. We are exploring a range of options to make that policy more effective.
  We know that assets are being wasted which ought to be brought into use, and much more needs to be done in that respect. We have emphasised the importance of urban renaissance and we are putting a strong emphasis on developing areas such as the Thames gateway, where there is huge scope for substantial new development on brownfield sites and in sustainable locations. That is why we have put a new focus on high-quality design to maximise land use. We are looking for mixed developments in which people can live side by side, whether they are buying or renting, with a good element of affordable housing in new developments.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I thank the Minister for giving way. A central and important issue is to see whether we can provide good-quality housing in greater densities than hitherto. Many of us on both sides of the House who take an interest in these matters were intrigued—there is no other word for it—by the Deputy Prime Minister's speech to the Fabian Society some months ago. In the light of what we have heard about the Government being all talk and no action, should they not by now have introduced more constructive proposals and examples of how their aim can be achieved, for us to judge? If that is a good way ahead, it will go some way towards answering the vexed question of how much greenfield land has to be built on in the next 20 years.
  Mr. Raynsford: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has a great deal of experience in these matters, that we need to explore practical measures that enable us to implement the brownfield initiative. That is what we are engaged in doing.

  229
  We are seeking to set in place new policies, to give local authorities new powers and new information through the national land use database, to identify sites, to bring properties into use, to set up partnerships and arrangements to allow mixed development where that is feasible, and to ensure that there are appropriate powers for land assembly—another important priority of ours—so that we can make a reality of urban regeneration. It is hugely important, and it is part of our priorities.
  Mr. Paterson rose
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way for the last time, as I must make progress.
  Mr. Paterson: I am grateful to the Minister. Will he answer a simple question? If only 40 per cent. of the sites available are brownfield, will fewer houses be built, or will the remaining 20 per cent. be build on greenfield sites?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman obviously has difficulty in understanding the process. If one seeks, as we do, to increase the density of individual development, one can achieve more homes on any given amount of land. That ensures that one makes optimum use of land and stops the wasteful process of the past 20 years or so in which the vast majority of new housing has been built at incredibly low density. More than 50 per cent. of new housing built in this country in the past decade was at a density of less than 20 dwellings per hectare. That involves a profligate use of land, and we need to change that.
  Mr. Steen: If the Minister cannot sort out the EU ruling, what will happen? Why does he believe that he can sort it out when subsidies are not allowed under the treaty of Rome? How are we to deal with that?
  Mr. Raynsford: I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's question on that. The Government are working to ensure that we have in place appropriate arrangements to enable us to continue with our policy objectives, to which we are committed.
  All the initiatives that I have mentioned are being taken forward by the Government to meet our two key objectives, which are to ensure that every member of our society has the prospect of a decent home, and that our countryside is protected from unnecessary and insensitive development.
  As I have already said, reconciling those objectives is not easy, but it is essential if we are to meet our economic, social and environmental responsibilities. That is what the Government are determined to do.
  The Opposition have made many references to Serplan, and it might therefore be helpful to the House if I spell out the new procedure for establishing regional planning guidance, which the Government have established, and refer to Serplan's role in that process. Let me remind Opposition Members that, when their Government were in power, regional planning guidance was drafted not by the local authorities, not by Serplan, but by the Government. That is what the centralising party did when it was in office. It dictated from the centre, which is what the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells seems so unhappy
  230
  about. That was his party's record in government, although Conservative Members appear to have developed a strong case of selective amnesia on this point.
  We changed the procedure for developing regional planning guidance. We recognised that there was a case for more meaningful participation by local authorities and their associations, such as Serplan, and all the other regional interests.
  Mr. William Cash: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I have already told the House that I must make progress, and I fear that the hon. Gentleman will take us into rather unproductive textual analyses of European matters. However, I give way to him.
  Mr. Cash: On regional planning, there is an interaction between the Minister's Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, particularly with respect to assisted area status. In my constituency, there is the Grindley Lane investment area. The Government office for the west midlands, in partnership with the local authorities, to which the Minister has just referred, agreed that assisted area status should be granted to a range of villages in my constituency. That was a sweetener for the purposes of providing for the Grindley Lane investment area. Can the Minister explain why, when planning permission for that investment area was turned down, the assisted area status remained? There is now a black hole in a greenbelt area, with no justification whatever.
  Mr. Raynsford: I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has only just joined the debate, that his question goes very wide of its subject, which is housing provision and the importance of balancing the need for housing with the need to protect the countryside. As the hon. Gentleman said, the DTI has a crucial role in respect of his question. He will be aware that I am a Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I give way for the last time.
  Mr. Bradley: My right hon. Friend talks about the need to protect the countryside, and we all acknowledge that need. Will he take this opportunity, to draw a distinction between the party of government and the party of opposition? The latter has set its face against the development of affordable housing for rural communities—the kind of housing that they need if they are to sustain themselves for the next generation.
  Mr. Raynsford: I assure my hon. Friend that I have already drawn a number of distinctions between the party of government and the party of opposition, and between the Opposition's mode when they were in government and their mode now that they are in opposition. I reiterate the fact that we are committed to meeting housing needs and to ensuring that people on modest incomes are not deprived of the prospect of a house by stupid policies that create house price inflation and prevent people on modest incomes from finding housing.

  231
  May I return to the subject of Serplan, which I was discussing before I was taken on a detour? We changed the procedure for developing regional planning guidance because we recognised that there was a case for more meaningful participation by Serplan and all the other regional interests. Indeed, unlike the procedure under the previous Government, whereby the Government produced draft planning guidance, Serplan produced a first draft of this guidance. The regional planning body will normally be expected to prepare the draft in consultation with other regional stakeholders, although in this case the timetable meant that Serplan could not involve other stakeholders to the extent that we would have liked.
  The procedure also allows full public scrutiny of the draft at an examination in public; again, that is a new procedure to allow for more transparent decision making than applied when the Conservative party was in power. It allows the assumptions behind the draft to be tested and allows other points of view to be expressed.
  In the case of the south-east, Serplan prepared the initial draft. It was then subjected to an examination in public chaired by Professor Crow. He then submitted his panel's report to the Government and, as everyone will know, the panel came to very different conclusions from those of Serplan.
  Under the new procedures, the Government's role comes into play at this stage. We considered both the original Serplan draft and the panel's report, and we then issued for consultation revised regional planning guidance. Of course, many issues are covered in the process—it is not just about housing. However, as housing has been the main focus of controversy, I shall confine my remarks to this part of the process.
  Our conclusion, on looking carefully at all the evidence, was that the panel had overestimated the requirements for new housing at approximately 1.1 million homes over the next 20 years. Equally, however, we were clear that the original Serplan draft had underestimated housing requirements—at around 700,000 homes over the 20-year period.
  Therefore, our revised regional planning guidance made two important amendments. The first was to move away from the 20-year projections, which were an integral part of the old predict-and-provide approach that we have abandoned. Instead, we have proposed annual rates of house building, with reviews at least every five years. That allows a far more flexible response to changing demand and needs, in line with our plan, monitor and manage approach.
  Our second proposal, on the basis of the evidence that we derived from current trends, from the Serplan draft and from the examination in public, was to suggest an annual build rate of 43,000 homes a year in the south-east, with a review at the end of a five-year period or earlier.
  Mr. White: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Serplan was drawing up its original plan, it had an independent analysis of the data, and that the panel came to a higher figure than Serplan originally put forward? The leader of my council has described the figure that Serplan is now quoting as totally irresponsible.
  Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend rightly notes, Serplan reached its figure for reasons best known to itself, and did not necessarily follow all the technical advice and
  232
  guidance that it received. Clearly, it is important to look at the full range of issues when we make proposals that are crucial to the interests of the region, and we shall do that.
  Our proposals, along with all our other suggested revisions to regional planning guidance, were published for consultation on 27 March, with a 12-week consultation period that ended yesterday. I am pleased to say that there has been an exceptionally heavy response to the consultation, with some 700 responses received by yesterday. We shall, of course, consider all the responses before we reach decisions. As is well known, Serplan failed on this occasion to reach a consensus about housing requirements. In the past, Serplan, like other bodies representing a range of different local authorities with differing political control, has sought to reach across the party political divide in the best interests of the region as a whole. Sadly, that did not happen on this occasion. We therefore have differing majority and minority views from Serplan. I accept Serplan's vote and we shall consider fully the proposals that come from the majority. However, we will also consider the views of the other authorities, which would normally have been involved fully in the process and been able to sign up to the conclusions. On this occasion, they have not been able to do that. We shall also consider the views of all the other interested parties, such as the regional development agencies, business and voluntary sector interests, environmental groups and those concerned with the full range of housing provision.
  The suggestion put about by the Opposition that we will ignore Serplan—repeated in the wording of their motion—is entirely unfounded, as I made clear in the House last week. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells continues to peddle this nonsense, and that he did not have the courtesy to withdraw false and unfounded allegations about my comments.
  The hon. Gentleman's allegations are as unfounded as his claim that we intend to cover the countryside in housing. That is pretty rich, coming from a member of a party that was known throughout the 1980s and early 1990s as the greenfield and out-of-town developers' friend. Its record in government was deplorable. Fifty per cent. of all out-of-town development in the post-war period took place in just five years, between 1985 and 1990. The Conservative Government set no recycling target until 1995, and then it was a target of just 50 per cent. Our target is 60 per cent. Thousands of little greenfield boxes are spreading like a rash across the countryside, all at low housing densities and all dependent on the motor car. That was the Conservatives' legacy. We should not forget how much Lady Thatcher hated public transport and wanted to promote the great car economy.
  As I have said, the Conservatives have a deplorable record. No one should attach any credibility to their current promises. By contrast, we have clear and credible policies to tackle constructively the real challenges posed by the respective claims of housing and the countryside. I can assure the House that, whatever housing figure we decide is appropriate—we have made no decisions as yet—we will require no more development of new greenfield sites than would have been envisaged under the original Serplan proposal. That is because we have put a clear emphasis on well-designed developments at higher densities, to ensure that we accommodate more people on any given amount of land.

  233
  That will not only reduce the profligate waste of greenfield land that is so characteristic of the executive-home developments so beloved by the last Government, but help to ensure the existence of better-designed environments providing for a wide range of needs, for single people as well as families and for those requiring rented accommodation as well as those requiring homes for sale. In that respect as in so many others, we are putting into effect recommendations in Lord Rogers's urban taskforce report. The Opposition may refer parrot-like to the Rogers report, but I suspect that they would not recognise, let alone approve of, any of my noble Friend's policy proposals even if he were to beat them over the head with a copy of his report.
  Our approach is intensely practical. It was inspired by the vision of a better future for our cities and our countryside. Ours is an approach that does not neglect the interests of the poor and the disadvantaged. Ours is an approach that will leave Britain with a far better legacy than the one that we inherited from the last Government.
  The Opposition's case is threadbare; their record is deplorable; and their motion should be dismissed with the contempt that it deserves.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister's mother recovers well, and that he and the rest of the family are aiding that recovery as we speak.
  I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) did not allow me to intervene when he suggested that the Government had to tell the people—that the people needed answers to some of his questions. I was going to ask whether he could answer one of my questions, which has baffled the nearly 2 million people who live in Hampshire. They would be interested to know why the county was singled out for special treatment under 17 years of Tory rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "18."] No; the Tories came up with a policy that changed the plan slightly in their last year of government.
  The Tories missed the point when it came to Hampshire. There was hardly a planning application refused by the county council or the district councils that the Government did not back on appeal. Tens of thousands of houses are built on greenfield sites; not a single brownfield site was developed with the Government's support during the time when they were in control.
  Mr. White: The exception was when the site in question was in Nicholas Ridley's backyard.
  Mr. Hancock: Obviously there were exceptions, but they were small exceptions, and there were not many of them. The price that we paid in Hampshire, as a community, was one that many generations will regret in years to come.
  If we are honest, we must look back a bit further even than the Conservative misrule of the years between 1979 and 1997. Coming from Portsmouth as I do, I know at first hand why the situation there deteriorated—why the city chose to build outside. It built the largest council
  234
  estate in Europe outside the city boundaries; but that decision was made in the aftermath of war. Many of our great cities had to go through the same process, because the only option available to them was to build outside.
  We built communities containing greenfield gaps. It became convenient for developers to look at those gaps—gaps between the large council estate outside the city, and the city. They felt that filling the gaps was a developer's dream. Successive Governments fell into the trap of allowing that development—that sprawl—to take place.
  If we accept that it was inevitable that the inner-city industries would decline—I think that few would deny that—we must also accept that, in the 1960s and 1970s, we should have planned to ensure that the sites were reused. If that had happened, the rape of the green belt that took place during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s could have been stopped.
  There are three more good reasons why we are in the mess we are in today. The three issues involved were the direct responsibility of the Conservative Administration who ruled the country in those years. First, there was the right to buy, and the selling of good council houses with no proper replacement policy. It was nonsensical to allow local authorities to dispose of property, believing that the solution would be provided by the powerful Housing Corporation and housing associations when those bodies would manifestly never be able to deliver what was required. They were not capable, financially or practically, of delivering what local authorities have been able to deliver. Opportunities have been lost, and some of the problems that we now face in inner cities result directly from that policy.
  Secondly, there was the Conservative Government's failure to continue one of the success stories that they inherited from Labour when they came to power in 1979. The general improvement programme was built around the aim of rejuvenating properties, many nearly 100 years old, which would be guaranteed a 25-year life span. It brought life back to the cities. I remember campaigning in my ward to stop the bulldozers. The campaign was successful: 30 years on, people are still living in those houses and enjoying having a back garden and a front door with neighbours alongside them, in a friendly community. Those benefits have been denied to thousands of others whose houses were cleared under the slum clearance policy.
  Sadly—and neglectfully, in my view—the Tory Government dropped that programme. They allowed the process of improvement to be retarded, and presided over the adoption of a!negative approach. Only developers with ready cash could obtain grants; young first-time buyers were dissuaded from taking on the challenge of improving older inner-city houses.
  The third factor—which caused most of our problems in inner cities such as the one in which I live—was the fact that the Government, for all the right educational reasons, allowed polytechnics and further education colleges to become universities, and allowed them to encourage a massive increase in the number of students without providing the resources that were necessary for students to be housed. Consequently, there was another bonanza for landlords in inner-city areas. They could now consider a flat-fronted, three-bedroomed terrace property in the centre of Portsmouth. Following the relaxation of the rule that no more than three unrelated adults should

  235
  live in one property—"three" became "six"—in cities throughout the country, six students per house are paying £50 a week for a room. The owner of the property would be buying a five-bedroomed house on a greenfield site, while still making a handsome £1,200 a month and being able to pay two mortgages.
  In different ways, the Tories encouraged the development of those three problems, and the Government failed to recognise the enormous damage that they were doing. Between 1979 and 1997, local authorities sold nearly 2 million properties. In how many cases were the properties needed to meet the needs of local communities in inner cities, built by those capable of building them?
  Local authorities were the one agency that was denied the opportunity. They were not allowed even to repair their housing stock properly. The country now faces nearly £17 billion-worth of repairs just to bring up to standard housing that is still owned by local authorities, while billions of capital receipts were left in the bank and we were not able to use them.
  What did Serplan try to do? The Minister slightly hedged his bets when he suggested that the Government had looked at the figures carefully. I think that most people would say that they looked at the original figures, looked at the Crow report and split the difference. Within a very few points, the figure is the mean difference between the two figures. It is not wrong for people to look rather cynically at that issue.
  Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to raise a point of order, but I have just been in the Lobby and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has been using a mobile phone there. I wonder whether there is a view on whether mobile phones should be used in our Lobby.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that a ruling has been given on that recently. It is certainly nothing to do with the occupant of the Chair in the course of a debate. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take the matter further, I suggest that he does so in a letter to the Speaker, but I think that there has been a recent relaxation of the rules.
  Mr. Hancock: Serplan was bitter in a way because it felt that its view, the local view, had not been taken seriously. The only action that it could take to resist what was going on was to express a view that the figures were flawed and that it would come up with a figure that justifiably could be satisfied within the communities that it represented.
  I am a former member of Serplan. I know from long back that its chairmanship and membership have always been taken seriously. Serplan has always performed credibly, no matter who was running it. It was looked at as one of the prime movers in getting planning right, but Serplan can succeed only if the Government listen to it with an open mind and give it the opportunity to put its message across in such a way that it can be respected, with its view talked through purposefully. Sadly, that dimension is gone. It needs to be rebuilt.
  Serplan is about local accountability. It is about local people getting elected and representing local views. Is the Minister serious in what he is presenting to the House in
  236
  the Green Paper? The Government themselves talk about the need to ensure that local people make those decisions. There can be few bigger decisions that local communities make than the number of people they want to live around them. We must look at whether the figures stack up.
  As I said in my intervention on the Minister, when he was courteous enough to allow me in, it is no good arguing a good case for the use of brownfield sites in inner-city areas if, at the same time, the nation as a whole has nearly 750,000 empty houses. Sadly, I did not read much in the Green Paper to lead me with a lot of enthusiasm to believe that that situation was going to be easily accommodated. It is not.
  The figures do not apply to just one place. There are nearly as many empty houses in the south-east as there are in the west midlands or in the north-west. There are even more of them in London. One wonders why house prices are so high in areas with so many empty houses, yet it appears that house prices continue to escalate.
  In the south-east alone, there are 94,000 empty properties. That in itself is a national disgrace. We should not allow a single greenfield site to be developed until a proper battle plan is drawn up that addresses that issue. It cannot be right. Most reasonable people whom we represent, of whatever persuasion, cannot be convinced that there is a way forward when we fail to address that issue.
  Mr. Kerry Pollard: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of those houses are empty because they are in transit between either being sold or bought, or because they are being re-let?
  Mr. Hancock: I do not accept that because I know that the figures stay remarkably static; the figures for property that has been empty for more than six months or for more than a year remain remarkably static. Local authorities have thousands of empty properties. The national figure for local authority houses is enormous—82,000 in total.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the south-east of England and in many other parts of the country, a substantial problem relates to the speed at which houses physically can be passed on when being sold in the private sector? That to some extent relates to the transactions on house sale and purchase, but it also relates to the rate at which probate goes through. Does he accept that that should be looked into?
  Mr. Hancock: Of course, that is a sensible suggestion. I agree entirely that there are problems associated with the way in which property is passed on, but, when we analyse that, we find that it affects a small percentage. The percentage of properties empty for more than a year far exceeds that. I do not believe that legal procedures are holding up all that. When I have examined such matters in my city, that has not been borne out.
  Mr. Phil Hope: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the ratio of housing in this country to, say, housing in Romania is about 2:1; I understand that that is currently the position.
  Mr. Hancock: I do not think that that will help the debate too much, but it is probably an interesting

  237
  conversation piece that the hon. Gentleman uses from time to time. However, I do not believe that it will develop his argument much here, or support the Minister' s.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman makes some serious points about vacant accommodation, but is he suggesting that it is his party's policy that houses in private ownership should be subject to compulsory purchase order powers to introduce them into the housing market? That is the implication of what he is saying.
  Mr. Hancock: I think that there are lots of ways in which we can help the situation. There is a problem. I listened with great interest the previous time that we debated the matter, just before the Green Paper was published. The Minister said with great anticipation that there was something coming. Now that it has arrived, I do not believe that it was worth the wait. A lot still needs to be done. I am sorry if the Minister feels unhappy with that statement, but I was hoping for more positive help to get empty property back into use.
  I have just been told that England are now 2–1 up, which is pleasant news. I missed the other point because I thought that it was 1–1.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I might express the view of the whole House if I say that the hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to the debate that is taking place, in which many other Members wish to participate.
  Mr. Hancock: I understand that. I know that feeling of waiting only too well.
  The Liberal Democrats have tried to persuade the Government to see the error of their ways. My colleagues tried to persuade the Tories, but could not win that argument during their time in power. Like all Members, we want proper respect for the environment and a balance to be found between urban development and protection of the green belt. That goes without saying.
  We believe that we must restrict the sprawl and come up with measures that can address that. Liberal Democrats have said time and again, inside and outside the House, that we want a firming-up of the guidance about cleaning up contaminated land. It cannot go on being said that we can develop brownfield sites in preference to greenfield sites if there is no one around to pick up the tab for cleaning up the sites. Too many inner-city sites are badly contaminated. It can be done only if the Government are prepared to intervene and to help with that process.
  We need greenfield taxes on developers' excess profits. Such taxes need to deliver an alternative. We also need to find a proper way in which to get older properties back into use. That can be done simply by levelling off value added tax. In one stroke, we would gain an enormous benefit if we reduced VAT on improvements to around 7 to 8 per cent. That would be reasonable.
  Although we could all talk about past experiences, as I said, in the south-east, we have had some pretty bitter ones. The Government's proposals will not solve the problem, and Liberal Democrat Members do not believe that they will even start to meet the real need. If we are
  238
  to get away from past practice, we shall have to have some radical re-thinking. We need some positive thought about how local authorities can really play a part—not only in the planning process, but, once again, in delivering housing that people want.
  If we really do want to use inner-city areas, we shall have to ensure that matching resources are provided to boost education and health provision in them. If we do not do that, the Secretary of State, in exercising his responsibility for planning applications, will have a very difficult job in refusing developers' proposals for greenfield development. Increasing demand will not be restrained if that provision is not made. We need positive thinking, which has been lacking. We also need real leadership.
  I hope that some good will come from the Green Paper. I also hope that the Minister is listening very closely not only to hon. Members, but, especially on this issue, to those who have a vested interest in the subject—local authorities and local people.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Paul Clark: I am glad to be able to contribute to a debate that is important not only for people in the south-east, but for people across the country. The debate is not only about numbers; it is about people's lives. Despite the claims made by some Opposition Members, the debate is also about our children's future—their ability to live and to work where they wish.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) mentioned the need for real leadership. I have no doubt that, if the Government had not shown real leadership and looked to the future, they would have been accused of irresponsibility and of abrogating their responsibility to the House and to the people of the United Kingdom. It is only right that every Government should plan for the future, to determine how people are living their lives, where they want to live and how developments should proceed.
  The previous Tory Government attempted such planning when they were in office. I was a local councillor in the then borough of Gillingham at that time, when we had to live with the Tory construction plan. As I do not want to be accused of putting words into anyone's mouth, or of attempting to mislead anyone, I shall quote from that plan, which was adopted in late 1996, early 1997. It stated:
  Current regional guidance … sets a regional housing provision—
  for the south-east—
  of 57,000 dwellings per annum—
  until 2011. It went on to say that Kent's share of that regional housing provision would be 5,800 dwellings per annum.
  The plan justified the 57,000 figure for various reasons, such as
  projected future average rates of net migration—
  which is population movement into the county of Kent, and
  the changing relationship between population and households.

  239
  The plan rightly stated that the average household size in Kent was decreasing from 2.85 in 1971 to a projected 2.26 in 2011. It went on to cite as reasons for declining household size factors such as
  smaller family size, earlier household formation (young people leaving home and forming separate households sooner), increasing longevity and high divorce/separation rates.
  If I recall correctly, those were the precise arguments that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister advanced in his statement to the House on 7 March, when he was introducing new planning policy guidance 3. He said:
  I emphasise that 70 per cent. of new households over the next 20 years will be single person households.
  Some will be youngsters setting up home. Some will be people living independently of their families. Some will be elderly people living longer … Many will need well designed, well located homes for rent or to buy that are affordable and that give them a range of choice and a better quality of life. We must therefore plan for those changes.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 863.]
  Those were the same reasons that were given in 1996. They are the same reasons that we must consider today when considering how to plan for the future of our counties and regions.
  When I was a local councillor, I argued against developments in Gillingham's own backyard and in other parts of Kent. I recognise, as I am sure that every other hon. Member does, the feelings of weakness and powerlessness that one feels when confronted with speculative planning applications that are ultimately approved despite the desires and wishes of democratically elected local authorities. I saw plots of land behind housing developments disappear because another 15 homes could be squeezed into them.
  I genuinely believe that the new planning guidance has gone a long way in helping to strengthen the position of locally elected councillors who, at the sharp end of the issue, are trying to put into practice the policies necessary to meet the requirements and desires of local communities. The strength of that policy lies in the sequential approach that is at the heart of PPG3—the presumption in favour of using recycled land and buildings before greenfield sites. The sequential approach entails consideration first of urban brownfield sites, then of urban extensions, and then of new settlements in good transport corridors. Additionally, local authorities are now able to review land allocations, to ensure that they measure up to the new PPG3 approach.
  The south-east is certainly not uniform, but—from Guildford to Gillingham, and from Sheppey to Southampton—contains blatant differences and variations. According to all the deprivation statistics, north Kent, where my constituency is located, has a number of the top 10 per cent. most deprived wards and a per capita gross domestic product that is 7 per cent. below the Kent average—which itself is lower than the United Kingdom average.
  Against that economic background, there is a clear need to meet the requirements of those who are already living in Kent. We must, of course, also promote inward investment, to create more jobs and prosperity for those who are already living in Kent.
  The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was in government, recognised the need to build homes and to create communities, including jobs and
  240
  social infrastructure. He recognised that the east London corridor, which is now called the Thames gateway, provided a prime example of a place where the type of policies being pursued by the current Government could deliver homes, thereby easing pressure on other areas. Every planning document on Kent—including the Tories' Kent structure plan and all the documents published by the current and the previous Government—has recognised that opportunity. Serplan has long recognised that potential. That sequential approach means that the brownfield sites that are in abundance in the area of the south-east to which I refer can be used to ease pressures elsewhere, while at the same time meeting the Government's guidance of 60 per cent. or more. We can bring in sites that are totally derelict, with a history of industrial use but now of no use to anyone. That can be done through concerted effort.
  Local decision making is the key—I am sure that no one would disagree with that—but it has to be done within a strategic framework. Back in 1995–96, the Tory Government imposed an increase of 2,500 in the number of dwellings required by Kent, despite opposition from elected local representatives. The strategic guidelines have to be put into place at a local level, and that is what happening today with the backing of the planning framework that has been introduced.
  We are deciding the strategic sites locally. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) mentioned some of the hurdles to creating those sites. There is further to go to overcome those hurdles, but we are prioritising them locally and planning the resources required. The issue is land for building communities, to provide homes, jobs and the social infrastructure required. Classic examples exist where such work has already happened.
  I have already noticed that house prices are increasing in north Kent as the infrastructure is put in place. I have no doubt that, if we continue to provide the jobs and redevelopment required, but without the housing, we will end up short of homes for key workers and others. The policies outlined by the Opposition would be a complete disaster for economic regeneration in north Kent.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Nearly a year ago, I instigated the first debate on the Rogers report, "Towards an Urban Renaissance", and it appears that, whenever I speak, the Minister is wisely in his place to ensure that everything that I say accords with his views. In that debate, I congratulated Lord Rogers and the urban taskforce on their report, not least because it came to many similar conclusions to those that I had reached 17 years earlier in my book, "New Life for Old Cities". However, the Rogers report clearly showed the immense task facing this country. It was committed to reverse urban decline and decay, to make cities vibrant and alive and to attract young people to the inner cities.
  During that debate, I made a prediction. I said that the Rogers report is a wish list of things that cannot be achieved without the political will. We will need to find a political will that must go beyond one Minister and one Department, however good their work may be. This country has produced fine reports over the years, but sadly little has changed. I had hoped that the challenging report by Lord Rogers would usher in a new era of urban regeneration, but I feared that it would not. To date,

  241
  although the Government have an interesting list of initiatives that they have taken—I thank the Minister for replying to my written question on 16 May—that is only a start and there is a long way to go.
  When I came seventh in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I concluded that the most useful thing that I could do to accelerate and expedite the recommendations in the Rogers report was to introduce the Urban Regeneration and Countryside Protection Bill, which had simple aims and would have been of benefit to Lord Rogers and his recommendations. Those simple aims were to identify brownfield land, place a statutory duty on Government, local and national, to utilise that land, and to ensure that any housing development did not place an undue strain on existing local infrastructure. The term infrastructure I defined as including health, education and recreational facilities, as well as transport and sewage.
  On Second Reading, on 24 March, the Government welcomed my Bill but said that they could not support it for two reasons. They claimed that it was too broad in focus, with aims that were too general, and that many of the clauses had been covered by points in the PPG3 guidance to local authorities. However, that was before the Government came up against something of a brick wall with Serplan. Lord Hanningfield, the chairman of Serplan and the leader of Essex county council, stated that the scale of development proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister would place an intolerable strain on the region's infrastructure. The Government do not appear to have paid much attention to that, but they should reflect on what has been said. If, say, transportation links were to become overloaded in the south-east, what would happen in other areas?
  When we talk about planning, we always concentrate on the south-east, but there are other areas. What will happen in the south-west, where 395,000 new homes have to be built by 2011? The south-east, as we all know, has the best transport links in the country. If they will be at breaking point under the strain of the new proposed housing numbers, what will happen in the south-west? It will inevitably face gridlock.
  The Government's numbers will be challenged all over the country by regional planning bodies unless they specify how the proposed scale of new development will be sustainable. Serplan's comments reflect a wider problem with the entire planning and urban regeneration process. Everything revolves around numbers. The Conservative Government whom I supported said that 4.4 million new homes were required. This Government have reduced that to 3.8 million. The prevailing view is that it does not matter whether it is 4.4 million or 3.8 million, because the houses will not be built by 2011.
  The Government have changed the slogan. "Predict and provide" is now to be considered evil, and the replacement is "plan, monitor and manage". Nobody knows what difference there is between the two. It is just a lovely spin—plan, monitor and manage—a sort of slogan that one whispers to one's planning officer and he says, "Oh, yes, of course that will be all right," whereas the old predict and provide was obviously wrong and flawed. It is just part of the new Labour spin. It is attractive, but we should know what it means, and it means very little.
  242
  The entire process still centres around the allocation of numbers, and not the infrastructure provision. That is why my Bill was rather important and still is. The Urban Regeneration and Countryside Protection Bill, which the Government allowed a full day's debate on 24 March and which is still in the list, would ensure, if they adopted it, that infrastructure was the key factor in deciding whether housing allocation could be achieved. It would ensure a bottom-up approach, with local councils deciding not only where the numbers should go, but what the numbers should be, based on the ability of the local infrastructure to sustain development.
  Even if the Government had not made the wrong decision in talking my Bill out, they have made another mistake. I have raised it already, and I shall stress it, because it is so crucial. They have run into difficulty with the European Union over urban regeneration. That matter should be addressed in the winding-up speech.
  Local Government First, which I dealt with in my intervention, reported that the EU Commission had ordered the Government to stop giving grants to assist companies in clearing up contaminated brownfield land earmarked for redevelopment. The Government failed to mention that when the issue was debated in Westminster Hall on 13 June. Did the Minister make no mention of such a problem because it is new, or was it in existence on 13 June? If it is a problem, and the Government cannot overcome it, their aim of having 60 per cent. brownfield redevelopment by 2008 will be completely in disarray. Contaminated land often lies in the heart of our cities, in the old industrial urban areas, the very areas that need to be revived if we are to witness an urban renaissance.
  I am a little puzzled as to why Europe has got into this, because I have the good fortune to be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. This year alone, we have passed directives allowing the French and German Governments to subsidise their coal and steel industries. I cannot understand how the Commission allows the payment of vast subsidies to those industries in those countries, yet rules that it is illegal for our Government to make a modest contribution to help regenerate rundown, contaminated land. Perhaps the Government could say a little more about what they hope to achieve. It has been somewhat glossed over in this debate, but it is a crucial issue, because it will put a coach and horses through the Government's policy.
  At the beginning of my speech, I referred back to my speech of a year ago. Those hon. Members who were present may remember that it was a bit of a tour de force. I stated that the political will for urban regeneration must go beyond one Minister and one Department. The Chancellor has not got the message yet. Perhaps the Minister could say something to him. If he cared for urban regeneration, he would not allow VAT, which he fails to impose on new build, to be added to renovation material used to renew the urban decline of houses, flats and warehouses in the inner city. It cannot make sense to talk about urban regeneration but leave out the sticks and the carrots. At present, the sticks and the carrots are in the wrong place. One gets a stick if one renovates in the inner city; one gets a carrot if one builds on greenfield sites. That cannot be right.
  Given the Government's inertia on urban regeneration and other problems, I earnestly suggest that the Minister look at my Bill again. If he did, it might give his entire

  243
  programme of urban regeneration a kick start. This country would be far better if my Bill had become an Act of Parliament by the time we rose this summer.
  9.3 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I do not remember hearing the previous tour de force of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). After his contribution this evening, I must say with all due respect that I am extremely grateful that the Government will be concentrating on meeting future housing need through their Bill and not through the hon. Gentleman's proposals.
  This has become an extremely interesting debate, now that the baying brigade of the Opposition have left. It should be noted that the issue is of such importance to the Opposition that there are precisely three of their Back-Benchers sitting in the Chamber. The serious contributions to the debate have come from my hon. Friend the Minister, my other hon. Friends who have spoken and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).
  I represent an inner-London constituency. After I was returned to the House in 1992, I was shocked by an explosion of homelessness in this capital city during the previous Government's maladministration of housing. People in every metropolitan area had nowhere to sleep other than pavements. Thousands of homes were repossessed because of the inequity of the previous Government's economic policies. There was not one iota of commitment to acknowledging that housing is a national resource.
  The previous Administration argued for leaving the matter to the vagaries of the market—"You cannot buck the market"—I believe was one of the phrases used. We were in the centre of a great car economy, we were told. When the Labour Government came to office, they were confronted with a shambles. Huge and diverse problems surrounded the maintenance of the housing stock in the south-east and throughout the United Kingdom.
  This debate concentrates on the Government's proposals for the south-east. The Green Paper makes a great step forward by acknowledging that housing is a national resource that must be maintained and developed nationally. However, this is a small island, as my hon. Friend the Minister said. We cannot expand our physical borders so we must therefore maintain our green belt. If we are serious about urban regeneration, and I believe that we are, we must ensure that public spaces in cities such as London are maintained.
  We must create greater densities, but that will inevitably require infinitely better insulation and sound proofing in the buildings that are put up. There must also be close integration with transport bodies to encourage the sort of social infrastructures that can make cities vibrant, thrilling and exciting places to live.
  Our inner cities decayed under the previous Administration. Crime took over deserted city centres, all sense of community disappeared and social structures broke down. I was amazed to hear Conservative Members argue against planning proposals in their constituencies. They must know that permissions for those proposals were granted by the previous Administration. For example, major developments were proposed in my constituency. My local authority, my constituents and I argued against them ferociously, on the ground that they
  244
  would bring no benefit to communities in the area, but they were rubber stamped by the then Secretary of State for the Environment. They went ahead with no regard for the genuine needs of people living in an inner-London borough.
  The present Government have made a major step change in their approach to this country's future housing needs, especially in the south-east. My one criticism of the proposals is that they do not emphasise that single-occupancy dwellings should not be single-bedroom dwellings. We should not consider building any property that does not have two bedrooms at least. Our population is ageing, and we know that most elderly people prefer to live out their lives in their own homes. It is entirely reasonable to suppose that, as people become frail, they may require the attentions of carers or other family members, because they will not want to go into a hospital or nursing home.
  We must begin to look at the immediate housing needs in the south-east and throughout the country, but we must also look to the long term, so that we can have a truly flexible housing stock. Houses must be able to meet the needs of individuals and young couples on the one hand, and on the other, the needs of elderly couples or individuals who require care.
  I strongly endorse the Government's proposals. For a glowing example of what can be achieved by building on brownfield sites, one need look no further than the Greenwich peninsula. I want not to discuss the millennium dome, but to concentrate on those aspects of development on the peninsula that demonstrate what can be achieved through the Government's approach.
  Ms Karen Buck: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and allowing me to give another example of the benefits of the Government's approach. A major development in Paddington will involve 1,000 homes and 30,000 jobs. It is an excellent example of inner-city regeneration and has been backed by £13.5 million of Government money under the single regeneration budget. It has also been designated an education action zone. That shows that the Government are able and willing to bring together all the components needed to make inner-city regeneration work. However, it is one of the last brownfield sites available in central London. Conservative Members are saying that they do not care about the housing need in the city that is not met because they are closing all other options.
  Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. What has become abundantly clear from the lamentable contributions of Conservative Members is that they have no care for the provision of housing in urban areas and no concern for the provision of housing in rural areas. It is this Government who have increased the green belt in three short years. In the 18 seemingly unending years of the previous Administration, we saw depredation after depredation when it came to the green belt.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Does the hon. Lady accept that there is no point in increasing the total square mileage of green belt for as long as the green belt itself is eroded and moves outwards from the cities? The kind of regeneration in the city centres that the hon. Lady and I would both like to see

  245
  simply will not happen if the Government continue to allow the green belt to be eroded at the fringe where it meets the city boundaries.
  Ms Jackson: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, let me say that the Government have no intention of allowing an erosion of the green belt. If he is thinking about what happened under the previous Administration, that happened because they failed significantly to make our cities desirable places in which to live. They did nothing about affordable housing—people fled to rural areas to find somewhere decent to live. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) seemed to blame people who had been driven out of city centres into rural areas for taking away the opportunity for the sons and daughters of the people already living in rural areas to find affordable properties in which to live. That is an interesting volte face from the party which claims to speak exclusively for rural communities.
  As I was saying, the reclamation of the Greenwich peninsula which was, I would argue, one of the most polluted sites in Europe, is proof of what can be achieved. The millennium village is a benchmark of what can be achieved, and what, under this Government, will be achieved. Its properties are being built and will be maintained, using the most environmentally friendly techniques. One would never know, from standing outside a property, whether someone had bought it or rented it. The village contains facilities such as schools and a park; the environment is not only pleasant to live in but will attract people into the area; and thousands of jobs have been created.
  It is, surely, a basic human right to have our own space in which to live and a door that can be closed to ensure our privacy and, equally, that we keep outside that part of the world which, at a particular moment, we do not wish to see.
  The previous Administration failed lamentably to tackle housing issues. This Government have produced a Green Paper that can lead to the results that people want. It is a scandal and a disgrace that there are still people in this country who have nowhere to live but a pavement or a shop doorway. This Government will bring about the changes that the country needs for the future. The contribution of Conservative Members this evening has been lamentable, matched only by their practices in this area when they were a lamentable Government.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). May I remind her that last Friday, Shelter was talking about an increase of 45 per cent. in the number of registered homeless since the Government came into office?
  I would not have sought to contribute to the debate except for the simple fact that when I wanted to bring a deputation of representatives of local authorities in the Cambridge sub-region to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), her
  246
  response was to decline to receive such a deputation. She said that she considered that to receive such a deputation
  would not add to our understanding.
  That will not be well understood by people who live in the Cambridge sub-region, perhaps not even by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell).
  The Under-Secretary and other Ministers at the Department need to understand that this would not set a precedent for other areas. Cambridge and the area around it have some special factors that have been expressly dealt with in regional planning guidance. The Minister knows that I have taken an exceptionally close interest in this matter, including attending both of the days during which this was the subject of an examination in public before the panel. He will know also that the response from the Government to the panel's report and the representations from the standing committee of East Anglia local authorities departed substantially from the panel's recommendations in relation to the Cambridge sub-region, and that the recommendations that Ministers have issued by way of draft regional planning guidance impact probably to a much greater extent in determining the shape of the structure plan in Cambridgeshire than would be the case in almost any other county in the south-east regional planning committee's or SCEALA's region.
  The housing projections for Cambridgeshire that were published by the Department last year for 2000–21 showed an increase of 33.8 per cent. over the period from 1996 to 2021. That is a higher increase than in any other county. We recognise in the Cambridge sub-region that we are wrestling with virtually unprecedented levels of development pressure, both economic and housing. The two sectors are intimately related. The Minister will know—I would have hoped that his ministerial colleague would have been prepared to discuss matters with local representatives before finalising regional planning guidance—that there are still substantial reservations about the proposals in the draft RPG.
  I will put the reservations simply in four terms. First, SCEALA and the local authorities in East Anglia have put forward a set of proposals that the Government have largely accepted in contradiction to Serplan. They have largely accepted SCEALA's forecasts, but not in relation to the Cambridge sub-region. Working exhaustively on the basis of environmental sustainability and capacity, local authorities saw 4,000 homes per year as a maximum figure. The Government, however, are considering 4,000 as a minimum, and in five or 10 years hence it is conceivable that that figure will be substantially exceeded.
  Secondly, there are considerable reservations about the balance, even within Cambridgeshire, that the Government are seeking. They are proposing that 70 per cent. of new houses will be within the Cambridge sub-region in due course. At the present level of building, 2,000 homes a year are being constructed in the area. The implication of the Government's proposals are that more than 2,800 homes a year can be built in the sub-region.
  There is no question of people in Cambridge or the surrounding districts saying that they are simply full, putting up the shutters and resisting economic development where it is desirable. However, there is a limit. The necessity of striking a balance between the quantum of economic development and environmental sustainability in the Cambridge region demands a different balance from the one towards which the

  247
  Government seem to be heading. To increase by 40 per cent. or more the rate of housebuilding in the Cambridge sub-region will be regarded as complete folly. Indeed, it will be regarded as impracticable when we consider the speed at which planning permissions are generated and processed and building is able to take place in the region. Against that background, an increase of 40 per cent. would be almost impossible.
  The third serious reservation is that the RPG makes references in explanatory text to the infrastructure consequences of economic and housing development on the proposed scale. However, it does not tie Government policy commitments to the achievement of specific housing target figures. Residents of the Cambridge sub-region will wonder what sort of Government could, in the middle of 1998, take the A 14 out of the roads programme—a road that is instrumental in the cluster development between Huntingdon and Cambridge, and all the cluster economic development in high-tech industries that the Government so much wish Cambridge to accommodate. They press upon Cambridge large additions to the housing stock, but at the same time remove from their investment programme the infrastructure development that is essential to achieve such large increases in housing stock.
  The fourth serious reservation is that the Government talk about the importance of green field and green belt, and the protection that should be given to the green belt. The Minister said, "Brown field first, green field last." However, when we come to the sequence of the location of housing that the Government set out in the draft RPG, we see in the five-point sequence that No. 2 states that development should be on the periphery of the built-up area of Cambridge, subject to any review of the green belt. In the minds of the former Labour administration of the city council—the Liberal Democrats shared the same view—businesses should be pushed out, large areas of green belt taken over and substantial housing built on it.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: It was not only Labour and the Liberal Democrats that supported a review of the green belt. Cambridge Futures, South-Cambridgeshire Partnership, and almost everyone who has done any serious study of the matter supported it too. Is the hon. Gentleman not being totally irresponsible in imagining that the houses can be built without a review of the green belt in Cambridge?
  Mr. Lansley: My point, which I should have thought that the hon. Lady would understand, was not that there should be no review of the green belt. Indeed, a review is integral to any structure plan review and any unitary development plan. That has happened before, and it would have happened again.
  My point, and I hope that the hon. Lady may yet agree with it, is that when Ministers lay down the sequence of the location of development in the Cambridge sub-region, they should, if they are to be true to their word—brown field first, green field last—make the green belt the fifth item, not the second, on the list. It may be difficult for Ministers to reconcile that with their wish to put housing on the periphery of built-up areas, but the desire to do so on a large scale in Cambridge must be secondary to protecting the setting of Cambridge, which was the original intention of green belt policy.
  I am seriously worried. Ministers seem to be contradicting their own policy of protection for the green belt. They also contradict their policy of seeking to
  248
  support economic development in the Cambridge sub-region by not committing themselves to the investment in the infrastructure and the support for public services necessary to deliver that development. They also contradict their policy by directing a large proportion of total housing in Cambridgeshire towards the part of the region in which the least amount of brownfield land is available for development.
  The confusion surrounding the Government's policy would be somewhat clarified if, when discussing policy for the Cambridge sub-region, they had the simple good grace to meet us to talk about it.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Kerry Pollard: I am delighted to speak in the debate. In a previous incarnation, I was a director of a housing association and chairman of the local housing committee. I have a great interest in housing issues.
  There has been much mention from Conservative Members about the whole south-east being covered in concrete. I recall a debate a year or so ago on the minimum wage in which they claimed that there would be mass unemployment as a result of it. Mass unemployment did not happen; nor will the concreting of the south-east.
  The south-east has an acute shortage of housing, which the Government are sensibly trying to address. It is not an easy problem to solve. Land is in short supply and is expensive. Available land must be used to create the maximum number of high-quality homes. That means higher densities than in previous years, and we must maximise use of brownfield sites. Both those ideas are at the heart of what the Government are trying to do—and achieving.
  In my constituency, 1,750 people are on the waiting list—half of them single. We have £10 million in reserve receipts. Last year's capital programme amounted to £3.5 million, and there is a £6 million programme this year. That extra spending, although welcome, does not begin to address the housing shortage. St. Albans has among the highest house prices in the land—a typical two-up, two-down terrace costs £265,000. My daughter and her partner bought a very small flat a few months ago for £115,000. Nobody on the average wage can purchase anything in St. Albans. Professional people—nurses, doctors, police officers—are unable to afford anything. As the Member of Parliament—paid two and a half times the national average—I could not afford a modest three-bedroom semi.
  All that demonstrates that my constituency has much greater housing need than almost anywhere else. Not only those on the waiting list, the homeless and single people, but a great swathe of professional people cannot afford to live in St. Albans.
  We have a demonstrable housing need, reserve receipts and buoyant council house sales. Together with that, we have two brownfield sites in the city centre that will be the subject of planning applications within the next few months. My ambition for those sites is that we should include a large proportion of social housing and some key worker housing as well as some houses for sale. One site belongs to Railtrack, whose representatives I, and others, have met recently to further that ambition.

  249
  We have used up our allocation of grant; those brownfield sites have come along and they will be built on. We have the chance to construct a significant number of social housing units, a modest number of key worker units, but we have only a limited time in which to act.
  Those schemes have all the elements that our Government are trying to achieve; they will provide brownfield, city-centre, high-density, high-standard, social housing and key worker housing. The achievement of our ambition for the sites requires funding either by grant or by allowing a receipts holiday on capital receipts. Such sites become available only infrequently. When they do so, the opportunity to build homes that are affordable to rent and to buy must be taken.
  We hear little of practical use from the Conservatives about housing our people. Our Government are trying to solve a housing shortage that has been around for years; we are maximising the use of brownfield sites and using higher densities than has been the recent practice while ensuring that top-quality homes are built to house our people.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate; I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) for making such a brief speech, as that has given me the opportunity to speak.
  The Minister's contribution at the beginning of the debate was rather disappointing—mainly because of what he did not say and because of the issues that he did not address. He talked about many aspirations without offering any concrete—if that is not an unfortunate, although unintended pun—examples of how and when they would be achieved.
  The Minister referred to a 60 per cent. target for building on brownfield sites and said that it would take time. We hear that statement more and more often from the Government: everything that they need to do will take time. They have had three years, but they have still made no progress. It is somewhat frustrating when they plead for more time on every issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) told us how the Government's policy reinforces and encourages the continuing migration of people from the north to the south. We have heard about the Government's lax approach to the green belt.
  I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) in the Chamber, not least because I understand that she has just accepted a position in the old Labour administration of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) at the London mayoralty. She made an interesting, enjoyable and well-presented contribution to the debate, but she did not tackle the real nub of the greenbelt problem. If the green belt is constantly redefined—if its perimeter cannot be relied on—it does not matter how much Governments expand a total area of green belt from time to time; the green belt's effect as a brake on urban sprawl and thus as a spur to development in cities will have been sacrificed. As that is occurring under this Government, it was hardly surprising that the Minister failed to talk about the decline of cities, nor that he did not really address the problems in our urban areas.
  250
  Perhaps one reason why the Minister did not deal with the matter is that he is all too aware that the Labour Government are spending less than the previous Conservative Government on regeneration in our cities.
  Ms Buck: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the housing investment figures for areas such as my constituency? Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster are both inner-city authorities. In Kensington and Chelsea in 1995, the housing investment grant fell by 21 per cent. In 1995–96, it fell by 3 per cent. During the past year, it increased by 35 per cent. In Westminster, it fell by 25 per cent. in 1995, but this year it has increased by 64 per cent.
  Mr. Brady: The Labour party is increasingly worried—rightly so—about what it likes to regard as its heartlands, so it should be concerned not about the figures read out by the hon. Lady but about the 20 per cent. cut in the Housing Corporation grant in the north-west, which is causing real pain and concern in areas where Labour is most vulnerable.
  My figures on expenditure in rural areas are from a Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions report for the year 2000—which shows that in their first four years, the present Administration will spend £400 million less on urban regeneration than the previous Government in their final four years. The Government have little to say about regeneration in terms of planning policies—having allowed the green belt to be eroded—or expenditure.
  I do not pretend that the previous Government had all the answers but the present Administration are falling into precisely the same trap of concentrating on major capital investment projects. The Lowry centre in Salford is a tremendous inner-city development and the Minister for Housing and Planning has the dome in his constituency. He likes to brush over it but he might think some of the developments surrounding the dome will be helpful. Under the previous Government, Salford quays in Manchester was redeveloped and the metrolink was introduced—both fantastic and successful projects.
  Key to bringing life to inner cities, however, is not major capital projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned the core importance of bringing families back to inner cities. Some parts of our cities have no difficulty attracting young, single households. Manchester city centre's first £1 million apartment was sold recently and there is one on the market now for £2 million. But all too often, young families feel compelled to move out of city centres because they are worried about crime and standards of educational provision.
  The Government's response to crime has been to cut the number of police officers across the country. Manchester has 150 fewer police officers than when the Government took office—when in the past year alone, recorded crime in Greater Manchester increased by 10,000 incidents. At a time when crime is rising, police resources are falling—a vicious circle that counteracts positive steps to bring more life to city centres.
  I give the Government credit for sensible policies at the margins of educational provision. When we debate the Learning and Skills Bill, we will have the opportunity to consider the proposal for city academies—state-funded, privately owned, partially selective schools that the

  251
  Government believe will begin to raise standards. Why will that policy be applied only where a school has failed and closed, when that option should be proactively pursued, to help raise standards in inner cities? Ministers think that 10 per cent. selection in city academies will raise standards but cling to the belief that anything above that figure—certainly 100 per cent. selection in grammar schools—will reduce standards.
  There is no coherence to Government policies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) so ably put it, predict and provide has given way to a new slogan but the practice is too similar to before. There is no radical attempt to tackle the real problems and difficulties faced by cities, acknowledge the importance of the green belt or address planning issues that exacerbate a concentration of development in the south instead of areas that need it more. The Government ask for more time but on the basis of their performance to date, there is no reason for allowing them to have it.
  9.34 pm
  Mr. Brian White: I do not have much time, so I shall be brief. However, if this were such an important debate for the Conservative party, why did so few Tory Back Benchers from the south-east speak? In fact, none of them did.
  One of the policies put forward by Conservative Members tonight suggests that the concept of developer roulette will continue. It is the system whereby developers put in planning application after planning application after planning application and they need to be successful only once. However, a community must win every time to protect itself. Their policy does nothing to address that. It is a lose-lose situation for communities.
  It is interesting to note that all the Tory shires complain loudly, but my hon. Friend the Minister might be interested to know that, behind closed doors, the same Tory shires that shout the loudest are doing secret deals to protect their area from development and to move it into neighbouring areas. That continues the pattern of how several Tory shires have operated for some years.
  The way in which the concept of the green belt has been mixed with that of green fields continues the way in which the Tories have tackled the debate over the past two or three years. They have not gone beyond the issue of what is green belt and what is green field. In addition, they never achieved the target that they set in government.
  One of the things that worries me about the vote by Serplan is that a deliberate plan for less than one home per household means deliberately planning for homelessness and overcrowding, with all the social consequences that they bring. It means to plan deliberately for a shortage of labour in areas of economic growth and it means a reduction in housing choice. That is the message that has come from the Tories tonight.
  I was going to discuss the regional planning guidance and consider what the Tories have done. On every issue—whether it is the sequential approach, the land take or urban capacity—they have not yet gone behind the issue of sloganising. Nothing demonstrated that more than the speech of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman).
  One key point that must be borne in mind is that we must protect the green lungs of cities. We must ensure that there are trees and that playing fields are not lost as a result of the increased use of land on brownfield sites.
  252
  Major development in the south-east is possible only in a few areas. Unfortunately, one of them is around the brickfields between Aylesbury and Bedford. I recognise that market forces will put pressure on Milton Keynes to have major development. The Government have taken the right approach in recognising that and in planning for the future. To take the Tory approach is to take the ostrich approach and just to hope that such development will not happen. If we did that, we would face the problems again.
  Tonight in Milton Keynes, 800 families are in temporary accommodation, and that does not count the people who cannot get on to the list. Tory policies would do nothing to address the needs of those families.
  One way in which the problems can be dealt with is through the role that English Partnerships and other Government agencies can play. They have started well, but there is much more that they can do. The Tories suggest that, because new jobs create pressure for growth, we should take the high unemployment and stagnation route. That is the approach that the Tories took in the early 1980s when we had high unemployment and areas were left to rot. We know the consequences of that.
  I conclude with a plea to the Government. The regional planning guidance is a good start for the south-east. It lays the foundations for sustainable development, but I hope that the Government recognise that many more things need to be done. The tough choices that the housing Green Paper highlighted are ones that we need to tackle. Issues such as housing benefit need to be sorted out if we are to get more people out of poverty. The Government must be prepared to intervene more and to set more rules for house building. I welcome what the Government are doing and I hope that they take the tough choices that the housing Green Paper identified.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: This has been an interesting debate, but perhaps not as interesting to some hon. Members as the noises off of a particular football match. The last I heard was that it was not going too well from our point of view. The opening speech of the Minister for Housing and Planning was obviously affected by that event; he certainly referred to it. His combination of clumsy abuse and chanting his usual mantras from the terraces, as it were, seemed entirely in keeping with the match that has been going on at the same time as this debate.
  As usual, the Minister started off with a bit of clumsy abuse about my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), before making a complaint about the number of debates that we are having on the subject and quoting in extenso from my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). The Minister's speeches follow a predictable pattern, and today's was no exception.
  The real issue is whether there is any truth at all in the Government's mantra that the old predict and provide policy is gone, only to be replaced by a new policy. I shall return to the Minister's speech, especially his discussion of the Serplan controversy. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, gave a rather long history lesson, but he shared our concerns about Serplan. As is usual and traditional for Liberal Democrats, he distributed his abuse equally between the Government and the official Opposition.

  253
  The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) spoke about the need for leadership and made a powerful case for changing the planning system. However, like most Labour speakers, he seemed allergic to speaking about anything in this context post-1997. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) brought his usual authority to the subject; spoke movingly about his private Member's Bill; and made an especially important point about the recent EU ruling, which I hope the Under-Secretary will deal with in her winding-up speech.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) complained about the previous Government. However, as a former Transport Minister, she must surely bear some of the blame for the current state of standstill Britain.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) talked knowledgeably about pressures in his own region and his reservations about the way in which the whole planning process affects his area. He also talked about the lack of joined-up thinking which, on the one hand, encourages cluster developments in and around Cambridge but, on the other, cuts important road links from the roads programme.
  The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) spoke graphically about the pressures on property prices and availability in his own constituency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) reminded us of the importance of protecting the green belt and pointed out that the present Government are spending less on urban regeneration than the previous Government. He also spoke about the need to encourage families back into the inner cities.
  Finally, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) made unfair criticisms of the Serplan process. I have visited his constituency, with his knowledge, and do not think that he should assume that all his constituents welcome with open arms any new development in his constituency, as he apparently does. There must be a limit, even for Milton Keynes, and some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents have views that are different from his.
  Since the election, Ministers, especially the Minister for Housing and Planning, have made a lot of noise about the alleged end of predict and provide. It turns out that that is just meaningless rhetoric. As we have heard, after carefully weighing all the evidence, Serplan came up with a figure. Professor Crow then came up with a much higher figure. Ministers have tried to present themselves as heroes by pulling out of the air a so-called compromise figure which, following further careful consideration, Serplan voted against before confirming its earlier figure. The result, as we have seen, is near hysteria from Ministers.
  I do not want to intrude in the running battle between the Minister and some sections of the media. However, on any view, it would be fair to say that the Minister expressed his unhappiness with the result of the Serplan vote only the other day. He told us a great deal about Serplan and how the Government have allegedly improved the procedure for what he called more meaningful participation. However, all the Government have done is split the difference, in effect. There were one
  254
  or two tell-tale comments in the Minister's speech. For example, I have written down his remark that Serplan came to its decision for reasons best known to it. That suggests that he is preparing the ground for taking not a blind bit of notice of what Serplan thinks.
  The Minister talked about Serplan's failure to reach a consensus. Although he will accept the vote, he will also take account of minority views. Perhaps he would prefer to make the vote the best of three. I assume that if the Conservative party had taken a similar attitude the day after the general election, he would have accepted that as well. Even though Serplan represents grass roots feeling and opinion across the region and even though there was a clear vote and a clear majority the other day, the truth is that, despite all the rhetoric, he clearly has no intention of considering himself bound in any way by Serplan's conclusions.
  In a recent interview, the Minister said of our policies: Ordinary people would be priced out of the market …
  Well, I have news for him. They are already being priced out of the market thanks to the Government's policies. Whatever happened to joined-up government? We do not hear much about that these days. Has he seen today's Financial Times report on Professor Huggins of the centre for advanced studies at Cardiff university, who has made a study of regional policy? For example, he has decided that training and enterprise councils in the north and the midlands "underperform the average". He says that
  neither these nor the new regional development agencies will make much difference.
  He also believes:
  A clear pattern is emerging whereby current policy intervention rolled-out from London is undoubtedly having the effect of widening regional disparities.
  Is that not the point of what my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said?
  It is a year since the Rogers report was published, yet what progress has been made towards a so-called urban renaissance? On that as on almost every other aspect of the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ministers have been rolled over by the Treasury—on urban regeneration, on housing repairs and renovation, on the VAT regime for development and on new infrastructure for those areas where the Government want to impose all the new housing. What are they doing about streamlining the planning system so that it is quicker and cheaper and reflects more closely the views of local people? Conservative Members think that the whole planning system needs a thorough overhaul.
  The Minister and Lord Falconer have one thing in common—their fondness for talking about ordinary people. However, we are not talking about Labour Members who are whisked from one luxury residence to another in the back of a chauffeur-driven Jag. We are talking about people who have worked hard all their lives and moved to an area whose natural beauty attracted them, or perhaps about those who were born in such an area and have lived there all their lives. No doubt Ministers would disparagingly refer to their concerns as nimbyism, but I prefer to regard them as positive parochialism. Those people are right to be worried because they know that, often, services in their locality are already stretched to breaking point and not getting better under the

  255
  Government. They know that schools, health services and transport infrastructure—let alone natural resources such as water—are under pressure.
  Interestingly, when the Deputy Prime Minister was interviewed on "Breakfast with Frost" the other day, he said, "What they want is an intelligent discussion, but take the Tories: they have gone to their Tory friends in Serplan and said, 'Vote against this because we want to make it an election issue.' Well, if they want to say there should be more executive homes at the expense of perhaps decent houses"—[Interruption.] Ah, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has joined us. I recognise the timbre of her voice.
  The Deputy Prime Minister concluded, "I am on the side of the many, not the few." The message for most people is, "The many not the few will be coming very soon to a greenfield site near you." I say to the Minister for Housing and Planning that he, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and the Deputy Prime Minister will not be at the controls when the bulldozers move in to concrete over the countryside, but they may as well be. I promise them that those who have to live with the consequences of the Government's broken promises and their own broken dreams will know whom to blame. They will exact their revenge on Labour Members and Labour councillors who have failed to stand up for their local communities. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion.
  9.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): We have discussed important issues tonight. It is a shame that their seriousness has not been matched by Opposition Members' contributions. As we have heard, this is the sixth time that the Opposition have chosen this topic for debate. I do not mind that because it is important. However, the Opposition's response does not get better; they do not improve with practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) said, they have failed to produce a serious political response.
  Opposition Members mistakenly perceive the debate as an opportunity for making cheap political gain. Tonight, as in the past, they have said nothing of substance about the way in which we should tackle some of the most difficult problems for people in our cities, towns and countryside. Some of Conservative Members' language has been contemptible. To speak about the rape of Stevenage and the rape of the green belt not only diminishes what rape means to victims, but is clearly designed to inflame and sensationalise the issue.
  Let me take hon. Members back to first principles. Most people would agree with my hon. Friend the Minister's three fundamental propositions: everyone should have the chance of a decent home; our cities and towns should be renewed and revitalised; and our countryside should be protected. However, anyone who gives those propositions any thought can immediately appreciate that marrying those objectives creates dilemmas.
  The dilemmas are different in different regions and types of area: urban and rural, inner city and country town. In some instances, the objectives are in conflict. For example, in the south-east, there is enormous pressure to
  256
  provide more housing for people and to protect the countryside. That dilemma cannot be resolved simply by ignoring one or other of the objectives, as Opposition Members suggest. It cannot be resolved by the Opposition's over-simplified, cynical response. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) said, the problem is not simply one of numbers. To adopt the Opposition's suggestions would cause immense difficulty now and in the future for many ordinary people who would not be able to find housing near their families or near their work. That has implications for the region's economy.
  Previous Labour Governments developed the planning system to enable the countryside to be protected and to get away from sprawl. That careful, planned approach should be contrasted with the effects of 18 years of Tory rule in the south-east and in our cities, where communities had no protection from the types of development that were promoted. The market ruled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) explained so clearly. Developers were led to believe that whatever they wanted would be granted. Poorly integrated road building and the break-up of public transport encouraged people to commute long distances by car. Out-of-town shopping—the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) knows all about that—was allowed to happen willy-nilly, and undermined existing town centres.
  Conservative policies led to neglect of the cities and the drain of people away from inner cities. Opposition Members have clearly forgotten that virtually all the development on greenfield sites that is currently happening in the south-east was written into local plans and granted permission under the previous Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) highlighted the importance of housing density. Renewing our cities, providing homes in areas such as the south-east and protecting our countryside call for greater efficiency in the use of land. Local authorities are beginning to take notice, and developments that are in line with our policy are beginning to be made. Building in the south-east has been at one of the lowest densities in the country: 22 houses per hectare, compared with an English average of 27 houses per hectare. In our cities also, higher-quality design of higher-density mixed housing is the key to improving the quality of urban housing and bringing people back to our city centres.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells on his continued contention that there is a flight from the north to the south. Opposition Members continue to fuel the fear that the south-east is being flooded with people from the north. That is a myth. It is not true.
  The hon. Gentleman placed great credence in The Sunday Telegraph when it misquoted my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to know what The Sunday Telegraph says about that issue. The same article, referring to new housing in the south-east, states:
  So are all the new closes and cul-de-sacs being filled with migrants from Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle? Not at all. The majority of new housing estates are being occupied by people who were already living in the region.
  The article continues:
  And what is driving the need for new houses is the growth in the number of single households, fuelled by climbing divorce rates and our ageing population.

  257
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take note of The Sunday Telegraph.
  Migration is a two-way process. People are moving into and out of the north as well as the south. The limited evidence available suggests that the so-called north-south shift is probably more a matter of low net migration into the northern regions.
  Housing density is a key element of our revised PPG3. That is in stark contrast to the contributions of the Opposition. Ours is a consistent package approach involving greater choice for households of different sizes, greater affordability—we did not hear much about that from the Opposition—and mixed developments. It also entails lower land take; less profligate use of land; a sequential approach so that brown fields are developed first and green fields last; delivery of a national 60 per cent. recycling target and higher quality of housing development.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Lady respond to a point that I made in the debate? If she is committed to brown field first and green field last, why in a five-point sequence for the Cambridge sub-region is green belt No. 2?
  Ms Hughes: The hon. Gentleman well knows the reason. Much of the capacity in that area is on brownfield sites. That is the reason for the No. 2 priority.
  The pressures in the south-east and in our towns and cities have not come about because of this Government. The pressures have accumulated largely because of the disastrous policies of the previous Government, who abandoned our cities, approved a dramatic rise in the number of out-of-town shopping centres, let the housing market do as it pleased and squandered greenfield land.
  The Opposition now argue that local authorities should be able to veto all new housing development in their area. If further proof is needed why Tory local authorities in particular should not be the sole arbiters of housing need, it is the behaviour of those authorities with respect to Serplan. They have abdicated responsibility and caved in to the political diktat of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells.
  The difference between the approaches of the Government and the Opposition could not be greater. We recognise that there are real tensions arising from real issues that will affect the social and economic well-being of people throughout the country. The Opposition are not prepared to recognise those tensions and the fact that a balance must be struck. To do otherwise would deny many people the chance of a home in the future, deny essential workers the ability of live near their work, fail to focus housing in towns and cities, add to the problems of traffic congestion and jeopardise local communities. We are determined to meet those challenges head on, and not duck them like the Opposition. Ours is a serious approach, which we will take forward.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 326.

  Division No.236]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Amess, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hayes, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heald, Oliver

  Baldry, Tony

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Beggs, Roy

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Horam, John

  Bercow, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brady, Graham

  Keetch, Paul

  Brake, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brazier, Julian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Breed, Colin

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Burns, Simon

  Lidington, David

  Butterfill, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Livsey, Richard

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  (NEFife)

  Uwyd, Elfyn

  Cash, William

  Loughton, Tim

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Luff, Peter

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Chidgey, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  (Rushcliffe)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clifton‱Brown, Geoffrey

  Madel, Sir David

  Collins, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maples, John

  Cran, James

  Mates, Michael

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Moore, Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Faber, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  Oaten, Mark

  Flight, Howard

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Page, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Fraser, Christopher

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Prior, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gibb, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robertson, Laurence

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gray, James

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Damian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Grieve, Dominic

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  259

  Shepherd, Richard

  Tyler, Paul

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Tyrie, Andrew

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

  Wallace, James

  Soames, Nicholas

  Walter, Robert

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Webb, Steve

  Spring, Richard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Steen, Anthony

  Whittingdale, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Willetts, David

  Syms, Robert

  Willis, Phil

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Ian (EsherS, Walton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigbn)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clelland, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clwyd, Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coaker, Vernon

  Banks, Tony

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Cohen, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Coleman, Iain

  Bayley, Hugh

  Colman, Tony

  Beard, Nigel

  Connarty, Michael

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Corbett, Robin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corston, Jean

  Benton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cranston, Ross

  Berry, Roger

  Crausby, David

  Best, Harold

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Betts, Clive

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cummings, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Blizzard, Bob

  (Copeland)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Borrow, David

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davidson, Ian

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Burden, Richard

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Burgon, Colin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Denham, John

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dismore, Andrew

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dowd, Jim

  Cann, Jamie

  Drew, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Casale, Roger

  Edwards, Huw

  Caton, Martin

  Efford, Clive

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Chaytor, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Clapham, Michael

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Flint, Caroline

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Flynn, Paul

  260

  Follett, Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lock, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Fyfe, Maria

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Galloway, George

  McCabe, Steve

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  (Makerfield)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Macdonald, Calum

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonnell, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McFall, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grocott, Bruce

  McNulty, Tony

  Grogan, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Gunnell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWilliam, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hanson, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Healey, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Heppell, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hesford, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  Hill, Keith

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hope, Phil

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Motley, Elliot

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  (B'harn Yardley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  (Aberavon)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hurst, Alan

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hutton, John

  Mudie, George

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jenkins, Brian

  Norris, Dan

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Osbome, Ms Sandra

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pike, Peter L

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Plaskitt, James

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kidney, David

  Pond, Chris

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pope, Greg

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Laxton, Bob

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lepper, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Purchase, Ken

  Levitt, Tom

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Ivan (BuryS)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rapson, Syd

  261

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Reed, Andrew (Loughboivugh)

  (Dewsbury)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, David (NWLeics)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Roy, Frank

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Touhig, Don

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Salter, Martin

  Truswell, Paul

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sawford Phil

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner. Neil (Wigan)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tynan, Bill

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Vis.Dr Rudi

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wareing, Robert N

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Watts, David

  Singh, Marsha

  White, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith Miss Geraldine

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  (Swansea W)

  Smith, Jacqui(Reddrtch)

  Williams, Alan W (E Camarthen)

  Smrth, John (Glamorgan)

  wills, Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wilson Brian

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Winnick, David

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wood Mike

  Stevenson, George

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Stringer, Graham

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questiions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 167.

  Division No. 237]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ainger, Nick

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Borrow, David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Banks, Tony

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Barron, Kevin

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burden, Richard

  Beard, Nigel

  Burgon, Colin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Coborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Benton, Joe

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Berry, Roger

  Cann, Jamie

  Best, Harold

  Caplin, Ivor

  Betts, Clive

  Casale, Roger

  Blackman, Liz

  Caton, Martin

  262

  Cawsey, Ian

  Grogan, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gunnell, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Hanson, David

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coleman, lain

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Colman, Tony

  Hope, Phil

  Connarty, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corston, Jean

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Crausby, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hutton, John

  Cummings, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (CcVtry S)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  (Welwyn Hatheld)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Uanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Denham, John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dowd, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Efford, Clive

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ennis, Jeff

  Laxton, Bob

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lepper, David

  Filzpatrick, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Levitt, Tom

  Flint, Caroline

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Follett, Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lock, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Fyfe, Maria

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Galloway, George

  McCabe, Steve

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  (Makerfield)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Macdonald, Calum

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonnell, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McFall, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grocott, Bruce

  McNulty, Tony

  263

  MacShane, Denis

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Salter, Martin

  McWalter, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McWilliam, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Singh, Marsha

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mortey, Elliot

  Stevenson, George

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  (Aberavon)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mountford, Kali

  Stringer, Graham

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mudie, George

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Naysmrth, Dr Doug

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Norris, Dan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  Osbome, Ms Sandra

  Touhig, Don

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Trickett Jon

  Pearson Ian

  Truswell, Paul

  Pendry Tom

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton)

  Perham Ms Linda

  Turner, Dennis (Kemptown)

  pfcS Colin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (NW Norfolk)

  Pike, Pete L

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Plaskitt, James

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pollard Kerry

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pond, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pound, Stephen

  Watts, David

  Pound, Stephen

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  (Swansea W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Wills, Michael

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wilson, Brian

  Rapson, Syd

  Winnick, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wood, Mike

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Roy, Frank

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ruane, Chris

  Mr. David Jatnieson and

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Amess, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Ballard, Jackie

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Beggs, Roy

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  264

  Bercow, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brady, Graham

  Lidington, David

  Brake, Tom

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Breed, Colin

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Burns, Simon

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Butterfill, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  (NEn Fife)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Madel, Sir David

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chidgey, David

  Maples, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  (Rushcliffe)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Collins, Tim

  Moore, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cran, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Norman, Archie

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Oaten, Mark

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Faber, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Prior, David

  Flight, Howard

  Randall, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Rendel, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fraser, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence

  Gale, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ruffley, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gibb, Nick

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gidley, Sandra

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gray, James

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Green, Damian

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

  Grieve, Dominic

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spring, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Steen, Anthony

  Hancock, Mike

  Streeter, Gary

  Harvey, Nick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hayes, John

  Syms, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Horam, John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tredinnick, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tyler, Paul

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Wallace, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Walter, Robert

  Keetch, Paul

  Waterson, Nigel

  Key, Robert

  Webb, Steve

  265

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Yeo, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willetts, David

  Willis, Phil

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's move away from the previous 'predict and provide' approach to housing provision and the introduction of a 'plan, monitor and manage' policy under the new regional planning policy arrangements, including a target for building 60 per cent. of all new housing on previously developed land and the tightening of planning controls on out of town shopping and ending the profligate use of land; supports the Government's policies on protecting the Green Belt and improving the use of all land and preventing piecemeal greenfield development; believes the Government's planning, housing, transport, countryside protection, welfare and economic policies will achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of both urban and rural development; welcomes the Government's continued commitment to sustainable growth, safeguarding the countryside and promoting an urban renaissance; supports the targeting of regeneration initiatives in areas of greatest need and the Government's inter-linked policies for revitalising towns and cities and protecting the countryside; and applauds the Government's aim of giving everyone the opportunity of a decent home and recognises that the doubling of housing investment and other social housing reforms introduced by this Government are creating stronger, safer and more sustainable communities.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
  That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.[Mr. McNulty.]
  Question agreed to.

  Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill is to make a modest change to the Census Act 1920 so that a question on religious affiliation can be included in the next census of population in England and Wales in April 2001. This is necessary because, these days, many more people choose to identify themselves in respect of their religion or their culture, but there are no reliable figures for ethnic sub-groups or for religion. The 2001 census provides a unique opportunity to collect information from groups who increasingly prefer to identify themselves primarily in this way.
  If we are to deal with discrimination in the provision of health, housing, schools, welfare and community care services, we require better information. We require better information about baseline figures against which racial disadvantage and social exclusion within particular minority groups can be monitored. This information would be useful in the planning of religious education; it would have relevance in the regeneration of inner cities; and I would expect it to aid the very valuable work of voluntary sector religious groups.
  Mr. David Maclean: My hon. Friend says that his Bill would aid planning for the provision of religious education, but since the proposed census question does not have a subset on the Christian religion determining whether one is Protestant or Catholic, how can that assist with the provision of religious education for families who wish their children to be brought up with a Catholic education?
  Mr. Sayeed: I suggest that my right hon. Friend read the Lords debate, and particularly the answer given by the Bishop of Lincoln, who answered that question and dealt with it adequately. It would be wrong and unnecessary for me to parrot his words, as I believe that my right hon. Friend has them in front of him.
  In their White Paper of last March on the 2001 census, the Government proposed including such a question. A wide range of faith organisations endorsed the proposal and it gained the support of the Inner Cities Religious Council, the Home Secretary's race relations forum and the Commission for Racial Equality. The Bill had a swift and unopposed passage in the other place and, I believe, commands the general support, but not the total support, of both sides of the House.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend will know that an amendment accepted in the House of Lords means that it is not an offence to withhold the information. I am grateful for that at least, but, if there is no requirement to give the information, does not that mean that the information is not really required?
  Mr. Sayeed: That is an interesting thought, but wrong, I think. Most people are prepared to give the information, but, because of the sensitivity of the question, it was

  267
  decided that the normal rules and penalties that appertain to filling all census questions should not apply in this particular matter.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will my hon. Friend say whether there is any precedent for introducing in primary legislation a duty for which the penalty for non-compliance is subsequently waived?
  Mr. Sayeed: I remind my hon. Friend that there has been a requirement for a number of years in Northern Ireland to complete a religious question. A similar non-mandatory duty in Scotland has recently received Royal Assent.
  Amendment of the Census Act 1920 is necessary because the schedule to it does not currently provide for particulars on religion to be recorded.
  Many of the questions that are traditionally asked in the census are specifically covered in the first five paragraphs of the schedule. Others that may from time to time be required are covered by paragraph 6, which provides for
  any other matters with respect to which it is desirable to obtain statistical information with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population
  However, legal advice over the years has been that religion is not a matter of either social or civil condition. Legislation is required to allow a question on religion to be on the census.
  Public tests of census questions have shown that the proposed question on religious affiliation is acceptable. Those who have had to complete the forms have understood the question and the quality of the response is sufficiently high for reliable information to be obtained. The question was satisfactorily included in the census rehearsal in April last year.
  The Bill is simple, clear and short. Clause 1 adds religion specifically to those particulars that may be required to be provided in a census.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend consider that the Bill complies with article 8 of the European convention on human rights?
  Mr. Sayeed: I am advised by those civil servants who have briefed me on the matter that it does.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Civil servants? Then why is it not a Government Bill?
  Mr. Sayeed: The Government can answer that question.
  Mr. Leigh: Civil servants—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that we have probably had enough interventions from a sedentary position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Order. I do not want to have to repeat what I have just said.
  Mr. Sayeed: I wish to put it on the record that I am most grateful to the Government for providing the time for a private Member's Bill on this matter.
  268
  Clause 1(2) removes the liability to the penalty under section 8 of the 1920 Act in respect of anyone who refuses or neglects to state in their census return the particulars with respect to religion. In effect, this makes any such question on religion voluntary. Although the statutory requirement under the 1920 Act to respond to all other census questions remains, the voluntary status of the proposed religious question deliberately reflects the sensitivity that surrounds this specific topic.
  The Bill affects only England and Wales. The census is a devolved matter in Scotland where legislation on this question has, I understand, already received Royal Assent. It is also a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and this amendment to the census would align census legislation in England and Wales with that of Northern Ireland and Scotland.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that religious affiliation changes in a way that race or sex do not? Equally, given that religious affiliation is a very personal matter, what guarantee can he give about the accuracy of this information? After all, I might be a member of whatever religion I might fancy, and who could gainsay me? Who could say that I was wrong?
  Mr. Sayeed: The census is a snapshot of the time that it is taken. Therefore, if my hon. Friend chooses one religion at that particular time, that is his religion of the moment. It does not mean that in 10 years' time he may not have changed his mind.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but it would be very helpful if you could tell us the Bill's status. I understand that this is a private Member's Bill which is being given Government time. It would be extremely helpful if you could confirm that that is the case. If it is, could you tell the House whether there are any precedents?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct—that is precisely the case. There are many precedents for this procedure.
  Mr. Sayeed: It is clear that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, no doubt, Labour Members, wish to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He referred earlier to the question being the same in Scotland as is proposed in England and Wales, but that is not correct. The question on religion in Scotland will be very differently phrased. How can he justify that?
  Mr. Sayeed: I believe that I said that the Bill would be similar—I did not say that the question itself would be the same. As I understand it, the question in Scotland differentiates between different Christian religions.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: On the hon. Gentleman's point in relation to Scotland, can he confirm

  269
  that the intention in this Bill is that the question in Wales will make direct reference to the Church in Wales, and not the Church of England?
  Mr. Sayeed: I can confirm that that is the case. The question will not be phrased "the Church of England".
  Mr. Hogg: This is one of the problems of introducing a private Member's Bill. By what authority does my hon. Friend tell us what the question will be in Wales?
  Mr. Sayeed: By reading the notes and the information with which I have been provided. I suggest that if my right hon. and learned Friend had consulted the same information, he would have reached that answer without asking me.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he has shown generosity and forbearance in the course of his short speech. Does he agree with the verdict of section 8 of the explanatory notes to the Bill that the response to the census will provide useful information about racial disadvantage and social exclusion?
  Mr. Sayeed: Yes, I do, and that is why I am happy to support the Bill.
  Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend as he reaches his peroration, but he is introducing a private Member's Bill and he has been receiving sensible advice from the official Box. Is it in order for the rest of us to consult the official Box so that we may receive advice on the relevant aspects of this highly complicated Bill? The precedent that permits only the Government to seek advice from officials clearly is not operative on this unique occasion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for MidBedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) is receiving advice as the Member in charge of the Bill, which places him in a particular position.
  Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What would happen if I went to the official Box to ask for advice?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should strongly discourage the right hon. and learned Gentleman from taking that course of action.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that you are ruling from the Chair that on occasions on which a private Member's Bill receives Government time, the promoter may have access, as of right, to official support that would normally be available only to a member of the Government? That strikes me as a new departure, and, if that is your ruling from the Chair, it seems to me that any future promoter of a private
  270
  Member's Bill who is privileged enough to have Government time may have access to which other private Members are being simultaneously denied.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not making any such ruling. Where the hon. Member for MidBedfordshire takes his advice is a matter for him. Conversations and advice occur in many different ways.
  Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been good enough to say that you would discourage me from seeking advice from the official Box. In view of your later ruling, however, I anticipate that you would not mind if I did so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall repeat what I have already said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think that I made my position quite clear. He ought not to pursue that line, and it would be sensible if we moved on.
  Mr. Hogg rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not deal any further with that point of order.
  Mr. Sayeed: I had intended to give a speech of only six minutes or so, but time has moved on. Perhaps I have been too generous in giving way. Let me answer a question that I failed fully to answer before the many points of order. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked about the question on the Welsh form—
  Mr. Hogg indicated dissent.
  Mr. Sayeed: Someone asked about it. The right hon. or hon. Member in question can read the Bill's explanatory notes, which state:
  In Wales the words "Church in Wales" will be substituted for the words "Church of England" within the Christian category.
  That is where my information came from, and that is why I replied in the way that I did.
  There are tensions in all multicultural and multi-faith societies. Discrimination fuels those tensions. Knowing the facts allows us better to plan what we do. This modest change to the Census Act 1920 will help us to gather facts and make a fairer society. I commend the Bill to the House.
  10.44 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I do not wish to speak for long, but the Bill is misconstrued, at least in its present form. I start from the premise that this matter should not be the subject of a private Member's Bill that is being given Government time, a process that I very much distrust. I shall be candid in saying that I distrust it because of its likely impact on matters such as fox hunting. All my life, I have defended the right of people to go fox hunting. We have fought the matter many times in private Members' Bills, and the Government, hitherto, have not given time to such a Bill. They promise to do so in future, and the fight will be hard fought. However, I do not want to encourage the practice

  271
  of a Government giving Government time to a private Member's Bill. That fact alone would be sufficient to cause me to oppose the measure.
  The matter goes further than that. The Bill is intrusive. I am perfectly willing to concede that it is quite difficult to establish a set of disadvantages that flow from the Bill, other than the infringement of the principle. In the other place, Lord Stoddart made the point that the provision of that information could enable discriminatory Governments, at some future time, to pursue discriminatory policies. I accept that the noble Lord was right in principle, but I think that the likelihood is not great.
  It is also true that the provision of such information could enable a Government more readily to impose burdensome regulation on industry and other sectors of the economy. That is more likely, and it is an objection. However, the objections are not themselves sufficient, so I return to the principle.
  The principle that we should defend is that the Government of the day do not have a right to pry into our private affairs unless there is a compelling argument in favour of doing so. That is the principle that underlies the European convention on human rights, which the Government have incorporated into domestic law. For example, the House will be aware that—I think—article 8 applies to the right of privacy and to respect for private life and family, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed).
  That principle has been incorporated into domestic law. It is at least arguable that the passage of the Bill would infringe that right. However, in any event, we would be prying into other people's private life. We would be asking them to state their religion—although not with great conviction, because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Bill includes the provision that it shall not be an offence to refuse to answer the question.
  As the question is not asked with much conviction because it is an unenforceable obligation, why in God's name are we asking it? The fact that I cannot identify any really compelling disadvantages—
  Mr. Forth: I will.
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend may well do so, but I do not pretend that I can. However, I assert that there is a principle. I fear that, once we agree to giving Governments—by gradual steps—greater power to intrude, the consequence will be greater intrusion. I am against that.
  I believe that the Government are rather totalitarian. They are oppressive in character. They ask of the people questions that they should not ask. They pass policies that they should not impose. They want to subject their fellow citizens to restrictions and obligations that should not be imposed. I do not see why I should be party to that tonight, so I very much hope that my hon. Friends and I will stop the Bill in its tracks, either by voting against it or by making plain our displeasure through extensive discussion.
  10.49 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I was disappointed by the speech made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). It will be regarded with tremendous dismay in my constituency.
  272
  A section of the British citizens of Rotherham believes that it is necessary for society to find out—on a voluntary basis—about the composition of the different religious communities to which its members belong.
  It is extraordinary to hear Conservative Members say that a question—to be answered on a wholly voluntary basis—that is proposed for the census should not be tabled. Never since I entered the House have I seen such a blatant, cynical and cold-blooded desire on the part of the Conservative party not to know its own country. It is interested only in ideology, not facts about the society in which we live.
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacShane: I would rather continue, so that we may move swiftly to the vote. After my speech, there will be no need for more from the Opposition Benches.
  Throughout its entire history, the Conservative party has denied the rights of other religions until forced to do so by social revolt—whether it was Catholic emancipation, the right of Jews to sit in the House, or the desire of hon. Members to affirm at the Dispatch Box. At every stage, the Conservative party has been reactionary and ideological, and has shown contempt for other religions.
  Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
  Mr. MacShane: I will not.
  Mr. Leigh: But I am on the hon. Gentleman's side.
  Mr. MacShane: For Conservative Members to say now that British citizens should not be allowed to declare their religion on a voluntary basis is an affront. I give way to the hon. Member for—
  Mr. Forth: The Vatican.
  Mr. MacShane: That is the voice of the old Tory party, which denied the Catholics of this country a place in this House.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member and I share in common a minority religion. In that sense, we approach many issues from the same point of view. Why is it necessary for governmental authorities to know our religion? What purpose would that serve? Have we not moved on from the time when people of our faith were persecuted in this country? We are all the same now—we are all British. That is all that matters. It does not matter whether we are Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Catholics or Protestants.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to make a speech.
  Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman makes the powerful, classic, republican and secularist point that religion has no place in our society. Yet, each day, we start our sitting in this House with prayers. We have a monarch who is head of the Church of England. That is the kind of country in which we live, where religion is important.

  273
  The last census was so vague in this matter that I do not know the religious composition of my constituency. It would be helpful to have that information because there are huge issues associated with schooling, overseas relationships and even food safety and hygiene that are of genuine importance to Jews, Muslims and Hindus. My constituents would like such a question on the census and I support them. Many Catholics, Protestants and—certainly in Rotherham—Methodists do not think to the contrary. As a representative of my constituents, I ask the House to support the Bill.
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: The House is right to debate and scrutinise the Bill thoroughly. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, we ought to be concerned. When 1 first heard about the Bill, I asked myself: What right have the Government to demand information about our religious beliefs? Why should Governments be interested in people's religious beliefs? I read the debate in the other place and the arguments advanced as to the benefits that the Bill would provide for society. I read about improved information for the planning of health care, education and social care, and that would, no doubt, be an important benefit. I read about the way in which the information would help the regeneration of inner cities, and that is an important benefit. However, the question that we must consider is the cost of setting aside those benefits.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: Let me make some progress first.
  The benefits of the Bill are important, but the cost is that we are considering introducing a principle that will lead to intrusion into private beliefs. [Interruption.] If Labour Members will allow me to make some progress, I shall say why I am pleased that the voluntary amendment was accepted.
  I was worried when I read the Bill when it was first published and then had its Second Reading in the House of Lords. There was no amendment to it at that stage for the information to be provided voluntarily. I have received representations from a constituent. Mr. John Harris of 109 Hook rise south, Chessington contacted me. Hon. Members may laugh, but my constituent is a distinguished genealogist who has studied censuses from every decade since the 19th century to pursue his hobby. He has noticed how, from census to census, the state has wanted more and more information and he is concerned that the Bill may require one piece of information too far.
  I therefore considered what this private Member's Bill would require. If it were not for the amendment that was tabled in Committee in another place, I would oppose the Bill. However, I believe that that amendment, which would make the provision voluntary, has made the Bill acceptable—but only just. I want to ask the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and the Minister for further assurances. For example, where will it say on the census form that the answer to the question is voluntary? I am sure that the Minister and, possibly the hon. Gentleman, will have received representations from civil
  274
  servants who have said, "Oh, we cannot put it on the form directly next to the question, because the form would be too cluttered."
  Surely, if we are to make sure that the question is seen to be voluntary, it must be evident to all those answering it that they can do so purely on a voluntary basis. Therefore, that information must appear in bold and next to the question.
  Mr. Tyrie: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, he is labouring under a misapprehension. Answering the question is not voluntary; it is compulsory.
  Mr. MacShane: Look in the Bill.
  Mr. Tyrie: I have the Bill in front of me and it is clear that recipients will have to fill in the form. That will be compulsory. The only difference between this and all the other requirements is that no penalty will be imposed if one does not respond to this one. It is compulsory to fill in the questionnaire.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of playing with semantics. Everyone's understanding, including that of the Government and statistics officials, is that it will be a voluntary question. If there is any legal doubt about that, he will have to make his point rather more persuasively than he has just done. My reading of the provision that he drew to my attention is quite the opposite of his.
  Mr. Tyrie rose
  Mr. David Heath rose
  Mr. Davey: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
  Mr. Heath: I agree with the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). It is not a voluntary question, as has repeatedly been said. The person filling in the census form is required to provide the information. What will be removed is the sanction against the person who fails to fill in that question. That is a significant point.
  Mr. Davey: I am afraid that, on this rare occasion, I disagree with my hon. Friend. It is not a compulsory question, because there is no penalty for failing to provide the information. I find it difficult to believe that a question is compulsory if there is no compulsion on the individual.
  Mr. Tyrie: That is the crux of the matter and explains why it is an absurd Bill. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), it is a unique case. We have never before had primary legislation with another clause attached to it that says that there will be no penalty for disobeying the primary legislation. That is an extraordinary situation. If the provision were genuinely voluntary, why cannot it be made clear on the face of the Bill that it is voluntary?
  Mr. Davey: I can only reiterate my argument that the question cannot be compulsory if there is no penalty for not answering it.

  275
  I want, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does, the Government to give assurances that the census form will clearly state that the question is voluntary. Moreover, I want the Government's assurance that, after the 2001 census, they will review how that voluntary question has worked in practice. I would be worried if the question were to be automatically attached to every future census. The Government must reconsider the matter after the 2001 census.
  Like the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I am also concerned about whether the Bill is fully compatible with the European convention on human rights. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government are not required to state whether private Members' Bills are compatible, so I hope that the Economic Secretary will, for the record, reassure us that the Bill is compatible.
  The benefits for which the Bill's promoters have argued, in this place and in the other place, are real. The information can help us to attack racial disadvantage and discrimination. If we can ensure that the right of the individual to withhold that information from the state is protected, by making the question voluntary, we can have the benefits without the costs to which other hon. Members have referred.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: The process in which we are now engaged is irregular, and it gives me grounds for believing that this has almost certainly been a Government Bill right from the start, but in a practice that we have now become used to, it is being smuggled through in the guise of a private Member's Bill.
  I am strengthened in that view when I read what the Leader of the House said last Thursday. She admitted that the Bill's position is unusual and said that
  Governments do not usually find time for private Members' Bills.
  She went on, with the casual arrogance that we have come to expect from the Government, to say:
  However, the Bill is believed to be uncontroversial.
  What right the Leader of the House has to say that such a Bill is uncontroversial is quite beyond me, as she had no means of knowing what were the views of Members of this House. We have become all too used to such attitudes; the Government simply glibly assume that a Bill such as this is uncontroversial.
  The Leader of the House went on to claim that the Bill
  went through the House of Lords without any difficulty.
  As we have already heard, a significant amendment was made to the Bill in the House of Lords because many of the Members of the other place expressed disquiet about a fundamental aspect of it. For the Leader of the House to claim that the Bill is uncontroversial and went through the other place without any difficulty strikes me as not only extraordinary, but rather typical of the Government's attitude to the legislative process and to this House and the other House.
  The Leader of the House also said of the Bill:
  The issue it addresses was raised after the main census legislation had gone through.
  276
  How careless—the Government had obviously taken their eye off the ball. She added that
  there was no reason to anticipate that there would be a difficulty in the House of Commons.
  I am generally an admirer of the right hon. Lady, but on this occasion her judgment of the House was inexplicably flawed. She should have known that such a Bill would be highly controversial in the House of Commons, as it has turned out to be, and I shall explain why.
  Mr. James Gray: Before my right hon. Friend gets into the main part of his argument, he referred to remarks made by the Leader of the House. Despite making those remarks, she said shortly after:
  The matter is one in which there is considerable public interest—[Official Report, 15 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 1106.]
  Surely that is the case and surely it is perfectly reasonable to have a full debate on the matter tonight.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because later I shall expand on the nature of that public interest, which I find sinister. First, during my preliminary remarks I want to refer to the explanatory notes which, apart from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), are all the guidance we have. The provenance of those notes might be interesting for the House to consider. Usually, explanatory notes are prepared by the Government to help us to understand a Government Bill, but here we have what look suspiciously like Government explanatory notes, except that they allegedly explain a private Member's Bill.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend—were he to seek to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker—or even the Minister might tell us exactly what is the relationship between the Bill, the Government and the Bill's promoters in the other place and in this House. Does not it seem odd that a private Member's Bill should be graced by explanatory notes that bear all the imprints of the civil service? However, let us simply take the explanatory notes at face value. Here we must look for the background to the Bill and what it seeks to achieve. Paragraph 3 says:
  Central government, local and health authorities, commercial business and the professions need reliable information on the number and characteristics of people and households if they are to conduct many of their activities effectively.
  That perfectly straightforward preamble lays the ground as to why we might want information of the sort that the census would provide. Paragraph 4 says:
  The Government, in particular, needs this kind of information to form policy, to plan services for specific groups of people and to distribute resources effectively to local and health authorities to enable them to direct resources to where they are needed.
  In a moment, we shall see that people's religious beliefs will be relevant to the formation of policy, the planning of services for specific groups and the distribution of resources. We are now deep into the real meaning behind the Bill, which appears to be that the Government intend taxpayers' money and Government planning to be directed to religious groups and to people's religious faith.
  Mr. Fabricant: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on precisely how the Government will allocate resources on health? After all, was it not Shakespeare's character Shylock who said:
  If you prick us, do we not bleed?

  277
  Surely people are human beings whether they are Jewish, Hindu, Christian or anything else. In health terms, what, precisely, is the difference?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend asks a good question. Later, I shall want to consider the interesting matter of how the Government will distribute resources or make policy for people who write "None" when a census form asks their religion, but I am now considering the preliminaries because I want to help the House and myself to understand exactly what the Government think they are about with these measures.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is conversant with the Treasury document "The 2001 Census of Population", but the rest of the House may not be. There is a definite difference in emphasis in paragraph 26 on page 8, which says:
  The topics proposed for the Census are those that have been shown to be most needed by central and local government, the health service, academics, businesses and professional organisations.
  What interpretation does he put on that?
  Mr. Forth: That raises a question similar to that which I am posing about the formation of Government policy. What those different bodies in their different ways would do were they given the information that would flow from those questions is a matter for speculation and one to which we must all turn our minds. However, I am even more worried to read in paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes that answers
  to the question would help provide information which would supplement the output from the ethnic group question by identifying ethnic minority sub-groups, particularly those originating from the Indian sub-continent. In turn, this will provide baseline figures against which the Government can monitor possible racial disadvantage and social exclusion within particular minority groups.
  That immediately leads to interesting speculation about the Government's perception—or that of the Bill's promoters—of the necessary connection between ethnicity and religious belief. Such an assumption is not only arrogant but dangerous.
  Proposed question 10 on the census form will refer to Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh. Will it be assumed that Buddhists are from one ethnic group? Are not there white Buddhists and white Muslims? Those who devised the question show great arrogance in assuming that ethnicity and religious belief fall neatly into the same category. If they do not believe that, the aim that is set out in paragraph 8 is nonsense.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a separate ethnicity question in the census?
  Mr. Forth: That may well be, but unless one can cross-reference ethnicity and religion, the measure is meaningless because paragraph 8 makes an explicit connection between ethnicity and religious belief. I do not believe that policies should be formed or resources distributed on the basis of religious affiliation. I challenge that assumption, and I shall revert to it later.
  For the moment, I simply stress that I reject the causal connection that paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes attempts to make. To make a connection between
  278
  religious faith, based on information that people are prepared to reveal, and Government policy on the distribution of resources is not only dubious practice, but an intrusion into the most private of personal matters: religious faith.
  Before we consider that, we must get to the bottom of whether answering the question is voluntary. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked that question, but failed to deal with it satisfactorily. Let us consider the general proposition that the census form makes it clear that it is compulsory to answer all questions. People will approach the census form on that basis, unless it includes a disclaimer such as that which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned. His question remains valid and I hope that we shall receive a comprehensive and satisfactory answer from the Minister.
  It is not enough to say that proposed new section (1A) states that
  no person shall be liable to a penalty … for refusing or neglecting to state any particulars …
  That simply means that the penalties that apply in relation to the rest of the census form would not apply to the question about religion.
  Mr. Hogg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the provisions of the Census Act 1920 as amended by the Bill? Failure to answer the question would be an offence that was not attended by a penalty.
  Mr. Forth: That puts the individual who completes the form in an odd position.
  Mr. Sayeed: Perhaps I can clear up the point. The front page of the census form contains a section entitled "Completing your form". I shall read it out for the edification of my right hon. Friend. It states:
  Completion of the Census form is compulsory under the Census Act 1920. If you refuse to complete it, or give false information, you may be liable to a fine. This liability does not apply to Question 10 on religion.
  Mr. Forth: That may provide the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. It may be helpful; that is for other hon. Members to decide.
  If there is no compulsion to answer the question, that will almost certainly undermine the validity of the question and its ability to achieve the stated policy objectives set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 8 of the explanatory notes. If some people are prepared to answer the question but others are not, because they think it is intrusive and arrogant, which is my view, or because they are embarrassed, or because they are too idle to do so—the reason could be any or all of these—the resulting disproportionality and unrepresentativeness threaten to undermine the purpose of the Bill.
  Let us speculate for a moment that people who would generally describe themselves as Christian do not feel obliged, or do not feel it necessary, to divulge the fact that they are Christian to the Government, whereas those who are Muslim are anxious to divulge that fact to the Government because their community leaders have told them, "If we can make sure that as many Muslims as possible answer the question and are therefore recorded in terms of their numbers, we have read in paragraph 8 of

  279
  the explanatory notes to the Bill that we will gets lots of resources because there are lots of us." That, presumably, is the aim behind the Bill, and that would be the motivation for particular groups—I pick Muslims more or less at random—to fill out the form.
  Do Christians suppose that resources will be allocated to them on the basis of their answers on the census form? That is a question which I hope the Minister will answer. It flows directly from paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes dealing with the formation of policy and the allocation of resources. What assumptions can I make about the allocation of resources to Christians, following the census? I should like to know the answer. Presumably, if we are living in an even-handed, non-discriminatory society, as the Government would like us to think, there can be no distortion of distribution across the groups. If that is the case, I am not sure that I see the point of asking the question.
  Matters get worse than that. Although the question proposed seeks to distinguish between Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh, it lumps all the Christians together, for some peculiar reason. Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations are all assumed to be the same. Does that apply to Jehovah's Witnesses, for example—I take another example, more or less at random—or to any other sect or denomination that would generally be described as Christian, but may well have very different views, needs, communities or places in society?
  Why are the Christians discriminated against by all being lumped together, while we take great care to make sure that Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims are treated separately? It is all very odd.
  Mr. Gray: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is making a good point. Is it not also peculiar that in the census question, the word "Protestant" is used alongside the term "Church of England"? The Church of England is a Protestant sect, but a great many other Protestant sects are not listed. There is a curious anomaly in the wording of the question, which shows ignorance or lack of care on the part of the Government in wording it.
  Mr. Forth: I shall leave those much better versed in matters theological to speculate on what such differences might mean. It is self-evident that there is probably as big a difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestant aspects of the Christian religion as, say, there may be between Buddhism and Hinduism.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I am concerned at the right hon. Gentleman's ignorance of non-Christian religions. There is no suggestion that, for example, Muslims should be asked whether they are Sunnis or Ahmadiyas. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking about beliefs within a faith system. Christianity is an overall faith system. There is no suggestion that there should be sub-divisions of other faith systems either. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that Buddhists, Sikhs and Muslims are part of the same faith system is offensive to many people.
  Mr. Forth: I am not sure that that is what I said at all. I said the reverse: that, whereas the question seeks to distinguish between all those faiths, it lumps all the Christian denominations together.
  Mr. Swayne: The distinction to which the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has drawn
  280
  attention—between Sunni Muslims, Shi'ite Muslims or whatever—is the critical information that is required to deliver the promises to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention in paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes. It is the information on those minorities within what the hon. Lady quaintly called "faith systems" that determines whether they are disadvantaged.
  Mr. Forth: I should have thought that that was almost self-evidently the case, but apparently it is not to the hon. Lady.
  I do not accept the objectives in paragraph 8, because I do not believe that possible racial disadvantage and so-called social exclusion within particular minority groups will be dealt with by the answers that may voluntarily be given to the question outlined in paragraph 10. I simply do not accept that paragraph 10 can deliver the objectives of paragraph 8, quite apart from the fact that it is an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion by the state into some of the most private aspects of people's lives. All of that is entirely unsatisfactory. I still hope that we shall get an answer later from the Minister as to why it is believed that racial disadvantage and social exclusion can somehow be determined by the answer to the question in paragraph 10. I see no necessary or obvious relationship between racial or ethnicity distinctions and those set out in paragraph 10—none, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Sikh. I just do not see the connection.
  In almost every single respect, this Bill fails all the tests. It fails the test of our historic desire to keep the state and the Government out of people's private, personal and, in particular, religious lives. It fails its own test of the dubious objectives set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 8 of the explanatory notes. It fails the test because it seeks to make the answering of the questions voluntary instead of compulsory, and therefore almost certainly undermines any purpose that it might have had.
  The Bill is unnecessary and intrusive. It has some sinister elements, which I believe we should resist strongly. Unless we hear some persuasive answers to these questions from the Minister at the end of the debate, I hope that the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading.
  11.23 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: I simply want to use this opportunity to give some examples of how this kind of information could improve the lives of a substantial number of people in my constituency. I also thought that it might illuminate and teach some hon. Members about why this exercise is worth while.
  Let us take, for example, the Muslim faith. For people of that faith, an important and deeply held part of their religion is to bury the dead swiftly. One of the problems faced by Muslims in Slough is that they cannot get deaths registered over the weekend. That causes my constituents deep offence and distress.
  The results of a census such as this could inform the planning of registrars of births, marriages and deaths, so that they could ensure that death certificates were issued, deaths were registered and burials could take place at weekends.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Lady aware that a similar rule exists within the Jewish religion? She will know that

  281
  there have been Jews in the United Kingdom for at least 1,000 years. Does she realise that Jewish burials have taken place despite the fact that this Bill has not been enacted?
  Fiona Mactaggart: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Jewish organisations support the Bill, partly because of the problems that members of that faith have experienced in ensuring that burials take place swiftly enough.
  Mr. Fabricant: That is absolute rubbish—and I know it. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Lady made a serious and important point about the burying of the dead in the Muslim community. There is a practical solution—putting registrars in the hospitals. I have given some thought to the matter; some expense would be involved, but there might also be some saving. Anyway, it is not a laughing matter. What the hon. Lady must explain is why it is essential to organise a census establishing people's religious faith to solve that practical problem.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I am afraid that services are currently planned on the basis of what people think others believe, rather than on the basis of what people know about others' beliefs. I think that a census giving real evidence of such knowledge could ensure that services meet the differing needs of people who have different beliefs.
  Another factor would affect another group in my constituency, in a slightly different way. I refer to the police training budget. Members of the Sikh religion who observe the five Ks carry knives with them. I have encountered cases in which young police officers, new to Slough, have arrested young men who have been carrying knives as part of their religious belief. That does not happen in the case of more experienced police officers, because they recognise that in the circumstances of the faith the person carrying the weapon is not, in fact, carrying a weapon, but is carrying a religious artefact.
  Mr. Hogg: That is a problem of bad training. If the hon. Lady consults the legislation that makes it an offence to carry a sharp-bladed instrument, she will find that there is a specific exemption in respect of those who carry such instruments as part of their faith.
  Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that that is not a high priority in police officers' training in his constituency, whereas it must be a high priority in Slough police officers' training. My point is that police training authorities should be able to target their training appropriately, where it is most needed.
  We need information that can ensure that services of all kinds are better shaped to meet the needs of the diverse communities that form our whole community. No one is suggesting that particular faiths should receive state subventions. We are trying to ensure that state services developed in a Christian tradition, which match the habits of the Christian faith, begin to match more fairly and accurately the beliefs and habits of other faiths. If we do
  282
  that, we can ensure that members of minority faiths feel truly a part of our whole community, feel that their faiths and beliefs are respected, and feel that they can truly participate. If we fail to do that, we shall fail to meet their needs.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I think that all censuses constitute an intrusion into our private lives, and that all censuses require considerable justification. A summary of a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights agrees. It states:
  The compulsory requirement to provide information to a census (including sex, marital status, place of birth)
  —incidentally, religion is not mentioned—
  was found to be an interference with private and family life.
  The summary said that that could be justified in certain circumstances relating to the public good, but the public good must be justified thoroughly and carefully, and I am not sure that it has in the case of adding religion to the census.
  I have not yet heard a convincing argument—certainly not from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—for what we shall gain from the addition of religion; nor do I fully understand where the pressure has come from. I have a hint of a suspicion that some religious groups may hope that, for example, they can obtain the resources mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), or can gain access to schools devoted exclusively to their faith, such as Church of England and Roman Catholic schools do now. However, I am only guessing. I still have not heard clearly what the real reason for adding the question is.
  Mr. Maclean: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The Muslim Council of Britain strongly supports the question on the ground that there is a social time bomb ticking away unless something is done now for the more equitable allocation of public services and better planning on matters such as community relations, health care, education, employment and housing. It certainly believes that the question will allow the Government to direct money and funding to it.
  Mr. Tyrie: My hon. Friend has firmed up my suspicion.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend raised the question of whether the census might be used to allocate funds to schools, but surely the only schools that are divided according to religion are Protestant and Roman Catholic schools in England and in Scotland. That is the only question that the census specifically fails to ask. It does not count the number of Roman Catholics compared with the number of Protestants; it counts merely the number of Christians. There is no provision at the moment for schools of other faiths.
  Mr. Tyrie: On the face of it, that may also be a good point, but I would need to think a little more carefully before being absolutely sure.
  Mr. Sayeed rose
  Mr. Swayne rose
  Mr. Tyrie: If I may, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) in a moment. I should like to give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
  Mr. Swayne: The objective may be to identify social exclusion so as to be able to target resources better, but I

  283
  do not believe that the information that is being asked for will provide the quality of information to be able to deliver that objective. Surely, the most disadvantaged group in the Muslim community is the Bahais. Therefore, one would wish to know where they were located and how many of them there were. The proposal will not deliver that.
  Mr. Tyrie: That is a powerful and persuasive point and further points us in the direction of saying that the information will not be valuable.
  Mr. Sayeed: I entirely refute the suggestion that the Bill has been promoted on behalf solely of the Muslim community. It is true that the Muslims have supported it, but so have the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the Hindus and the Sikhs.
  Mr. Tyrie: I believe that the Jewish community is divided on the matter. Indeed, I was approached by a member of that community about the Bill, who first alerted me to take an interest in it. It would be wrong to suggest that there is uniform and full support from all sections of those faiths.
  Furthermore, if I were a Jew, having seen what has happened in the past century, I would be deeply concerned at the idea that there should be an identification of Jews in that way in a census.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Tyrie: I shall give way in a moment.
  In a free society such as we live in at the moment, everyone, including all Jews, can rest assured that they will not find themselves disadvantaged in any way by providing such information, but, historically, some ethnic and religious groups, particularly the Jewish community, have suffered greatly from being so identified. I can well imagine that that served as one of the reasons why many people in the Jewish community are concerned about the matter.
  Mr. Hogg: May I raise the following point with my hon. Friend? If indeed the question is designed primarily to channel resources to particular groups, does he understand that many of us who represent the rural areas will suspect that the resources will be channelled to the inner cities and away from the rural areas? That is a matter that concerns all of those who represent the countryside.
  Mr. Tyrie: That is another interesting point, which may well be right. Again, I would want to think about it more carefully before being absolutely sure.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Tyrie: I will give way one more time. If the House will forgive me, I give way to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in July 1999, the Board of Deputies of British Jews voted overwhelmingly for the inclusion of the question in the census?
  Mr. Tyrie: I was aware of that, but I stand by the points that I made. It is not true that the whole of the Jewish community overwhelmingly supports the proposal. Many in that community do not.
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way, I think, six or seven times. There are not
  284
  many things that I want to say. It seems that almost everyone else is getting their speeches into mine. However, I shall do my best to make the few further points that I wanted to make.
  I think that many of the points that we have just heard made in interventions have slowly dawned on those who originally supported the Bill. I think that that is why the Bill has been curiously amended to include subsection (2), which suggests that people will not pay a penalty if they do not comply with subsection (1). I can only assume that the change has been made because those who support the Bill have realised that, as I believe, the Bill goes a step too far in demanding in a census information on religious belief.
  There has been some discussion—I should like to clarify the point once and for all—about whether this is a compulsory measure. Some hon. Members have said that it is a voluntary measure.
  Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyrie: No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have already given way seven or eight times—[HoN. MEMBERS: "To Opposition Members"]—and I had better move on. Initially, only Opposition Members sought to intervene. However, in view of that demand, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. David Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being susceptible to persuasion. As no penalty is associated with the failure or refusal to supply the information specified in the Bill, could the hon. Gentleman give his definition of compulsion? As providing the information would be a voluntary act, to which compulsory element does he so object?
  Mr. Tyrie: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had controlled himself for a moment, because I was about to deal with precisely that point. I am holding a copy of the Census Act 1920, which makes it absolutely clear that it is an offence not to fill in the questionnaire in full. The Bill makes it equally clear that religion will be added to the schedule listing the questions that it will be an offence not to answer. However, although not answering the question will be an offence, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, there will not be a penalty for not answering it. It will be a unique case in English law.
  Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyrie: No. I should like to make a little bit progress in my speech.
  Mr. David Taylor: On that very point.
  Mr. Tyrie: No. I have given way, I think, eight times, and I really should like to make some progress.
  Extraordinarily, although it is an offence not to fill in the census, in this specific case, no penalty will be applied to those who fail to provide the information. Earlier, I inquired whether such a bizarre state of affairs existed anywhere else in British primary law. I sought an answer to that question from the Library and from a professor of

  285
  law at London university no one could tell me of one example in primary English law in which a legal duty is imposed for the first time on people but the civil penalty for non-compliance is waived. It is very curious state of affairs.
  I do not like this Bill, which is unnecessarily intrusive. In principle, I do not like censuses, which I am not sure necessarily gather much information of value, although I acknowledge that some public good can come from them. I have not been convinced by anything that I have heard yet in this debate that anything of benefit would come from adding religion to the 1920 Act.
  11.38 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: I hope that, having established the principle of dealing with private Members' Bills in Government time, Ministers will make Government time available for consideration of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, which deals with a matter of deep significance for Opposition Members.
  I rise with some trepidation to say that Opposition Front Benchers support the Bill. However, I hasten to tell my hon. Friends—at least I hope that they are still my hon. Friends—that they have a free vote in this matter.
  Mr. Hogg: We always have a free vote. We are paid for our opinion—nobody else's.
  Mr. Ottaway: The reason why my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has a free vote is so that he may express his opinions, and I shall come to those in a second.
  We recognise that certain information is necessary to achieve the objective of good government. For example, we agree with the statements in paragraph 64 of the White Paper that the information could be of help in identifying ethnic minority sub-groups, especially those originating from the Indian sub-continent, a point made by right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It may be of interest to the House to know that such a question is already included in the census in Northern Ireland, where the information is used to help in the monitoring of equality policies.
  I share my hon. Friends' concerns about the dubious benefit that is to be derived from the legislation, but that is not a reason for not trying. If there is some benefit to be derived from the information, it is worth having, and that is why—on balance—we support the Bill. However, I have listened closely to what my hon. Friends have said and, if it is felt appropriate to move amendments to cover those points in Committee, we shall not hesitate to do so.
  Mr. Gray: In Northern Ireland, the census asks for a distinction between Roman Catholics and Protestants, which information is important in the delivery of proper government in Northern Ireland. If the census is to aid the delivery of proper government on the mainland of Great Britain, can my hon. Friend tell us by what mechanism Government aid can possibly be allocated to any religious group on the basis of the information gained? The answer is not through the standard spending assessment, which takes account of race.
  Mr. Ottaway: I shall come to the proposed question, but the issue of what is done with the information is a
  286
  matter for the person who assesses it and tries to make a decision on what will be done with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) alluded to the important point about whether much of the census can be replaced by market research. The census will cost the enormous sum of £254 million and I strongly suspect that much of the information gleaned from it is available from market research companies. The level of detail in the data that are held by private companies is remarkable. What is more, it is held on a postcode basis, which enables business and anybody else who wishes to to analyse the data. As usual, business is far ahead of Government and while we do not quarrel with the need for a census in 2001, an analysis should be made before the next census in 2011 of how much can be obtained from the private sector instead of through the lumbering process of the census.
  Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman seems to be developing the theory that successive censuses are less valuable because market research organisations can provide alternative information. Would it astonish him to learn that much of the information that market research companies collect is rooted in the information collected in the census?
  Mr. Ottaway: That may or may not be right, but much of the information is also obtained from examining the size of a person's house. Aerial photography plays an important part in assessing the wealth and prosperity of a particular region. I am not sure whether market research, which is being done not on a yearly, monthly or weekly basis, but on a daily basis, can wait 10 years for the next census.
  The organisation Christian Research estimates that 65 per cent of the UK is Christian and that non-Christian religions comprise 8 per cent, with at least 27 per cent of the country being agnostic. That information is available already, before the need for a census. It leads to the very important point made by the National Secular Society, that if, for example, the census shows that 65 per cent. have indicated that they are Christian, one could get an inflated idea of the numbers of religious adherents. There is a very big difference between being a member of a particular religion and a follower of that religion, and the answer would not address the difference. That is an important point, which we shall raise in Committee.
  With the Churches' attendances falling rapidly, those ticking the "None" box could quite conceivably be the largest category. It would be interesting to compare those professing to have a religion with attendance at places of worship.
  I now come to the question of compulsion. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham referred a great deal to the speech of Lord Stoddart in the other place. If I had been Lord Stoddart I would have made exactly the same speech at the time. It was based on the fact that the Bill before the other place did not have the no-liability element that we have in the Bill today. In fact, it was a matter of some surprise to us that on Second Reading in the other place the Government argued for compulsion and for a fine. We welcome the fact that they have revised that view.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is only partly right about that. Obviously, the fact that failure to respond is not an

  287
  offence punishable by a penalty is an improvement, but the point that the noble Lord was making was that this information, whether given voluntarily or as a result of compulsion, could be of value to certain people, and he cited governments headed by somebody like Hitler. That was his broad point: that it could be used by a discriminating Government. He was not focusing particularly on whether disclosure was voluntary or compulsory.
  Mr. Ottaway: I do not quarrel with that proposition, but if answering the question is voluntary—I shall come to the voluntary nature in a moment—it is a matter of choice for an individual whether or not he fills in the answer. Obviously, he will be aware of the consequences of doing so, and will have to accept the consequences.
  Mr. Tyrie: Does my hon. Friend accept that if it is clearly indicated that a response is voluntary, the value of the information collected will be greatly diminished?
  Mr. Ottaway: I suspect that that is right, but my hon. Friend knows as well as I do that an opinion poll based on, I think, 1,050 people is fairly accurate. If, say, 10 million out of a population of 50 million fill in the answer, it will be a fair guide to what is happening in society as a whole.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is not the truth of the matter that most followers of faiths are proud of their faith, and are therefore more likely to respond to the question than not? Those who do not will be those with no particular interest.
  Mr. Ottaway: I think that that is right, but I repeat that it is a matter of choice as to whether an individual answers the question. It is impossible for us to try to second-guess here tonight exactly how these data will work out, but I repeat what I said at the outset, which is that that is not a reason for not trying. That is why we support the measure.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way a second time, and I am grateful to him. Does he not agree that the fact that the individual may or may not be proud of his particular religion is not at all a good reason for the state to collect statistics about how many people are in that religion? It is of absolutely no relevance. One might as well say, "I'm proud of my very active sex life" and therefore put that in the census—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but I am not.
  Mr. Ottaway: The House might be interested in my hon. Friend's sex life, but a discussion of that could fall foul of what you might have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is right: pride is irrelevant, but people who fill in the box do so out of personal choice, whatever the reasons may be. That is a principle to which the Conservative party very much subscribes.
  My noble Friend Lord Weatherill moved an amendment to his Bill in the other place to remove the liability point. We agree with his sentiment that the arguments about a voluntary question should be taken seriously. Religion and religious belief are private matters. So are political beliefs, which is why we have secret ballots. Ballot forms are completed in confidence and according to personal choice.
  288
  In our judgment, it is essential that no one should be liable to a penalty for refusing or declining to answer the question. If the Bill did not make that exemption, it would not have the support of the Conservative party. The draft census forms states that it is compulsory to complete the census and that failure to do so attracts a fine. It adds that the liability does not apply to question 10, on religion, which covers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester.
  We welcome the removal of the fine, but consider that a note to that effect should be printed next to the question on religion in the census form. That would make it absolutely clear that the question is voluntary and that failure to answer it carries no penalty. We will table an amendment to that effect in Committee. If the Census Act 1920 has to be amended to address the point, that will be at the heart of the amendment. Some people do not read the small print on the front of the census form, and the voluntary nature of the question should be made plain for all to see.
  Mr. Hogg: May I encourage my hon. Friend to go down the road that he is outlining? He will know that the document to which he has referred is only a draft, and that it is authorised by statutory instrument. Therefore, should not what appears by statutory instrument be set out on the face of the Bill? Only by that means can the House get the reassurance that it seeks.
  Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point which I should like to take time to consider.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred to the wording of the question, which appears in full in paragraph 10 of the explanatory notes. It makes it clear that the word "Christian" includes
  Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations.
  As my hon. Friend says, that puts "Church of England" in a different category from "Protestant" and is therefore inaccurate and clumsy. The term "Protestant" is an umbrella term and is not a denomination in itself, as the question suggests. The "Oxford English Dictionary" defines the word as pertaining to
  a member or follower of any of the western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation.
  It is clear that the distinction is between Catholic and Protestant, and that the term "Church of England" should be included in the term "Protestant". Unless the Economic Secretary wants an enormous postbag on the matter, I suggest that she considers that point very seriously.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend said that we know what the question on religion will be because it is set out in the explanatory notes. I remind him that such notes do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading tonight, there is no guarantee that the words that appear in the notes will appear in the census.
  Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which gives the Government a good opportunity to reflect on the point that I have just made.
  After this census, the Government will arguably have a fairly accurate picture of the religious breakdown of the communities of England and Wales. In October 1999,

  289
  the other place considered the possibility of legislation against religious discrimination. There is a slight whiff in all this that some law might follow on religious discrimination. Summing up for the Government in that debate, Lord Bassam said that he was waiting for the results of research commissioned by the university of Derby before making any further decisions. I should be grateful if, some nine months later, the Minister could enlighten us as to whether the matter has progressed at all, whether the research is available and whether the Government have any preliminary thoughts on the matter.
  This is a Bill for England and Wales. It seems right and proper to us that such a sensitive matter, which affects only the people of England and Wales, should be decided only by Members of Parliament representing seats in England and Wales. The 2001 census in Scotland will be the first for which the Scottish Parliament has had a legislative responsibility. Experience shows that religious attitudes north of the border can vary from those south of the border. This is a thoroughly appropriate matter for this Parliament to decide in England and Wales, and for the Scottish Parliament to decide in Scotland. Just as I do not for one minute seek to interfere in the Scottish process, I trust that Members of Parliament representing Scottish seats will not seek to interfere in this Bill.
  This is a small but important measure and it has the Conservative party's support.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I will be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has already referred to the echoes that the Bill will have in the memories of some older people in the United Kingdom. In 1934, the German Government introduced legislation to include a clause in their census information asking for the religion of their subjects. My hon. Friend is right to say that the position in the United Kingdom is, thank God, nothing like that which existed in Germany then and, please God, it never will be.
  Having listened to the debate, I can see no real reason for this information to be requested. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said that it would give us a better understanding of the different needs of religious communities. I do not agree with her.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: In a moment. I agree that it is important to understand the needs of Hindus, Muslimswhether they be Shi'ite or Sunni—and orthodox, reform or liberal Jews. However, I do not understand—and perhaps the hon. Lady will elucidate this for me—how information from the census will help us to understand better the working of individual religions in this country and, indeed, the rest of the world.
  Fiona Mactaggart: It will not help us to understand different religions. It will inform us where observers of various religions live so that we can ensure that public services in those areas fit their needs.
  Mr. Fabricant: I thank the hon. Lady for her answer, but I still do not follow her logic. The hon. Member for
  290
  Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who has now left the Chamber—which is oh so typical of the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Oh, he is there; he has moved. The hon. Gentleman said that it would help us better to provide food. I think that he was alluding to halal and kosher food. Again, I do not see his point, because whether halal or kosher food is available is determined not by the religion one was brought up in or adheres to, but what one chooses to buy in a shop. There are halal shops and kosher shops because Jewish people and Muslim people—[Interruption.] Ministers may laugh and mock, but they know nothing about the Jewish or Muslim religions. If the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) wants to intervene, I would be happy for him to do so. The point is that the shops exist simply because there is a demand for them. Kosher shops have existed for hundreds of years, and halal shops for more than 80 or 90 years. They did not come into existence because of the Bill.
  Mr. Hogg: In response to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), may I say that the Bill means that the police force would be informed from the census about where the Sikh community exists? I should rather expect the police in Slough to know that Sikhs live in Slough.
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point. I began by saying that some would hear an echo of the days of 1934 when the German Government took a census. The last thing that those who remember that period will want is for the police to know where particular religious communities exist.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned that an overwhelming majority of the Board of Deputies of British Jews supports the Bill. Those Members have suggested that that means that the Jewish community supports it, but their argument is fallacious in the extreme. My pair, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), has rightly pointed out many times—he is not always right, but he often is—that the board rarely speaks for the Jewish population. Many Jews will feel—perhaps unreasonably, but they will feel it none the less—disquiet about this sort of information being included in a British Bill.
  To my mind, the Bill is very un-British. I cannot see what it is intended to achieve. I cannot see what help it will give to health care, social service provision or anything else provided by the state if we simply know the percentage of Jews, Christians or Buddhists among the total population.
  Mr. Leigh: We are trickling around the issue. I have a great deal of sympathy for Muslims who want schools funded by the state as schools are funded for Catholics, Jews or members of the Church of England. Would it not be honest to admit that therein lies the real purpose behind the Bill? The Muslim community wants to be identified as a significant minority in certain areas so that it may argue for its own schools and facilities. Why not just admit that instead of trying to pretend that there is some bigger or wider issue?
  Mr. Fabricant: I shall not go down that road, except to say that Muslim schools can be set up, provided that the people involved accept that non-Muslims must be able to attend, as with Jewish, Church of England and Catholic

  291
  schools, and that the national curriculum is adhered to. In addition, if most of the teaching is in English, there is no reason why Muslim schools cannot be state funded.
  Mr. Leigh: You do not need a census to know that.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is quite right.
  I do not think that the Bill is a healthy one. Nor, from a legal point of view, is it elegant. I ask the Minister for an assurance that a clear statement will appear alongside the question saying that, although it is compulsory to answer—it is compulsory to answer all census questions—no penalty will attach to people who do not. Many people, particularly Muslims or those who have recently entered the country—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member, Mr. MacShane, who has changed his name for a reason that I do not understand—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that we use moderate language in argument in the House; I do not like the way that he is going.
  Mr. Fabricant: I wanted to point out only that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) tries to demonstrate that we should be open, yet, for some reason, he is ashamed of his original name. I find that strange and I do not understand it. Many people might suggest that it would be sensible for me to change the name Fabricant—it does not fit easily on a poster, but I see no reason to change. However, we digress—(HoN. MEMBERS: "What was the hon. Gentleman's name?"] It was an elegant and proud Polish name. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman should have changed it. Perhaps he thought that there was discrimination in the Labour party and that by adopting a Scottish name—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard quite enough of that from the hon. Gentleman. Has he finished his speech?
  Mr. Fabricant: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to discriminate against the hon. Member for Rotherham—just as I do not want the Government to discriminate against members of the community who feel that they would be prejudiced by giving information of the type required by the Bill.
  I ask the Minister to undertake that the question will be followed by a statement that no penalty will be attracted by failure to answer it. I hope that she will bear in mind the fact that many of the people filling in the census will be new immigrants. Because of that, they may not have a good command of the English language. The statement needs to be made plainly and clearly so that there is no misunderstanding—[Interruption.] The Minister claims that she does not understand what I am saying. If she goes out into the community, she will find that many people—including older people who have lived in this country for many years, as well as immigrants—are unable to read six-point text.
  There must be a clear statement that there will be no penalty for not answering the question. If the Minister gives that undertaking, perhaps I shall not vote against the Bill.
  12.7 am
  Mr. James Gray: An important principle has always lain beneath the good governance of the United Kingdom, but not beneath that of states such as the old Russia and present-day China; it is that the state should not have unnecessary information about private individuals. That is an extremely important principle: the state should know only what it needs to know about particular people.
  That principle is upheld in many aspects of government—many of which have been advanced by Labour—for example, the Data Protection Act 1998. The whole principle behind that measure is to ensure that information about individuals is not known unless it is absolutely necessary. The same point applies to the Freedom of Information Bill. The Government will provide much information and will tell individuals what they know about them.
  We have always espoused those important principles in this country. They were never espoused by totalitarian states—under Hitler, or in Russia or China. The fundamental question behind the debate is: why should the state need to know people's precise religious affiliations—if they have them? As we have heard, about one third of the nation would state that they have no religious affiliation.
  We are trying to address some important questions. Is it possible for the state to know that information? Is it useful statistical information? Can the census actually collect it? Even if it can be collected, will it be useful to the state?
  There are some fundamental difficulties in respect of the collection of such statistical information. A significant number of people with a religious affiliation will choose—properly—not to answer the question. I should be one of them. I am very much a practising Christian, but I see no reason why the state should want to know that. It is a private matter. I attend my little church in Slaughterford on Sundays; I am a profound, practising Christian. I see no reason at all why the state should need to know that. I imagine that many people across the nation take precisely the position that their religion is a private matter between them and their God and there is no reason to declare it on a form.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: If answering the question is voluntary, the individual is at liberty to divulge that information if they choose. The hon. Gentleman has just done so and tomorrow's Hansard will record the faith that he follows and where he goes to church. What is the problem?
  Mr. Gray: Neither of the hon. Gentleman's two points is particularly valid. The voluntary nature of the question is an important safeguard, but the Government's original drafting did not recognise that. It stated that information was compulsory and that people would go to prison or pay a fine if they did not answer. It was only thanks to amendments by my noble Friends in the other place that the voluntary element was introduced into the Bill.
  If the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the voluntary nature of the reply means that it does not matter, and if a large number of people will not answer, what is the point of the question in the first place?
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: The debate has been rather broken up, when we should be thinking quietly and cooly about the logic behind the arguments. I came here tonight hoping to support the Bill—thinking, because of my convictions, that a question about religion would provide useful information. My remarks are the result of listening carefully, so I am reluctant to give way to many light-hearted interventions.
  Mr. Foster: My question is not at all light hearted. Most faith groups seriously want to make their point. How will they have the opportunity to do so if not by this method? The provision provides an opportunity rather than imposing an obligation.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman made the point earlier that because people take pride in their religion and want the public to know that they are profoundly affected by it, a good way to do that is through the census—as some form of PR exercise for the promotion of particular religions. That is contrary to the basis of the 1920 Act.
  There are many religious organisations of one sort or another. I was pleased to attend the Elim Pentecostal church in Chippenham last Friday, whose members would say, "We have plenty of ways of letting people know our faith. We do not need to tick a box on the census." That apart, I am not sure that is a proper use of public money and public information systems, simply so that faith groups can demonstrate pride in their faith. If it is, many other questions could be introduced to benefit particular groups—such as one about political affiliations. I am proud that I am a Conservative and there are many proud Conservatives across the nation. We ought to have a box on the form that asks, "Are you or are you not a Conservative?" That would give me the opportunity to demonstrate my pride in being one. I do not believe that pride in one's religious convictions is necessarily a good reason for including a question about it in the census.
  Given that a large number of people will refuse to answer the only question to which a reply is voluntary, that would—many statisticians agree—reduce the value of the responses. Also, many people would react to the question off the top of their heads. When most people in the Army are asked in a form to give their religion, they put Church of England even though they have not been to church for many years. What does one put if one is a lapsed Roman Catholic or a Christian by baptism who has since adopted the Jewish faith? The question requires a factual answer, with no opportunity for commentary or remarks about the profundity of one's faith.
  Mr. Sayeed: There is a write-in section associated with that particular question on the proposed form, which gives the opportunity to amplify one's reply.
  May I make one further point? John Rickman, who was the Clerk to the House of Commons at the end of the 18th century, said that the intimate knowledge of any country must form the rational basis of legislation and diplomacy. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?
  Mr. Gray: I do. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point about the Clerk to the House of Commons at the
  294
  end of the 18th century who laid out 12 purposes for the census. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said the 19th century. However, if he checks, he will find that Mr. Rickman lived at the end of the 18th century. He laid out 12 purposes for the census, and, as my hon. Friend said, the first is that the intimate knowledge of any country must form the basis of legislation. That is the case and for 200 years not knowing people's religious faiths has not prevented us from having the intimate knowledge to form a rational basis for legislation and diplomacy. If my hon. Friend is saying that, under the Government of every political persuasion for the past 200 years, we have been a poor Parliament that does not know a rational basis for legislation and diplomacy, he is incorrect.
  Mr. Sayeed: This will be my final intervention on my hon. Friend's speech. The point is that more people with faiths other than Christianity live in this country than did in the past. We are increasingly a multi-faith, multicultural society. Some people might not like that, but it is a fact.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is correct. I, for one, welcome that change in our society in comparatively recent years. That, in itself, is not necessarily an argument for increasing the number of questions on the census in the way that the Bill proposes; nor does it support what my hon. Friend said about the first purpose that the Clerk in the 18th century laid out for the census. Indeed, if, in the 18th century, the purpose of the census was to know about the nation, I do not understand why the fact that we are now a multi-faith society is particularly relevant.
  Incidentally, I conform to the 70 per cent. of this nation who remain Christian and I am speaking in a Chamber that opens every day with a Christian form of worship. I suspect and hope that we will remain a largely Christian society.
  Mr. Leigh: Much cant has been spoken in the debate and there has been a failure of honesty. The truth is that many Christians are nominal, lazy or will not fill in the form. The Muslim community, commendably from its point of view, is much keener and more vibrant and it is growing. Its members will fill out the form. Rightly, they are being pressed to do that by the Muslim community so that it can extend its influence in certain communities.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I shall come to it shortly.
  My first point was that the statistical information that is collected is likely to be inaccurate. I have touched on two ways in which I think that it will be inaccurate, but there are many others that we could discuss. For example, there is an important omission in that it lumps all so-called Christians together and lists other faiths individually. Statistically, that is nonsense and I very much hope that, in Committee, the Government will consider changing that provision. It might be interesting to have information on denominations in the Christian faith around the nation. However, the census is likely to provide statistically unsatisfactory information.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman said that he was one of the 70 per cent. of the people of this country who are Christian. From what does he derive that information if it was not census or quasi-census material?
  Mr. Gray: I was quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) who provided those figures. They may not be correct, and the information is anecdotal. It is important that the information should remain anecdotal, because there is no need for us in the Chamber to be able to say that 23,748,637 people are Christian and that 2 million are Muslim. There is no need for us to have that information; it is anecdotal. The Church of England does not know the figures for its membership, although the Church of Scotland has slightly better information on its membership because one has to sign up to become a member of that Church. However, many faiths do not know themselves how many members they have, and they do not have to know that. However, the Bill will introduce a new provision that will require the Government to know with precision and down to the last person how many people are members of each religion.
  I said that 70 per cent. of the people of this country are Christian. That information is anecdotal and the figure may well be incorrect. The figure may be only 50 or 60 per cent., but that does not matter. The quality of people's faith is what matters, not the number of people who hold it. It is not about quantity, but about quality.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gray: I am trying to make a little progress, so I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way now.
  The statistical information that the question will produce is likely to be extremely inaccurate, anecdotal and, therefore, not particularly useful even to people on the left wing who love statistics. It does not surprise me that the statistical arguments for the question come from Labour Members, who love to have figures and to know the nitty-gritty details of what people do. Even to them, the statistics are likely to seem rather inaccurate. Certainly Christians, such as myself and others who consider what has been said during the debate, can make sure that the statistics are inaccurate by, in my case, putting myself down as nothing or as a Muslim or a Sikh, simply to undermine the value of the information.
  Let us suppose for one second that, in Committee, the questionnaire or another part of the Bill is changed in such a way that the information would be 100 per cent. valid, although I cannot imagine how that would be done. Let us suppose, however, that after the 2001 census we know precisely how many people are Sikh, how many are Muslim, how many are members of the Wee Frees and how many are Roman Catholic. Now we move on to the second question, which is much more important: why should the state know that and what use will it make of the information?
  The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who cares so much about religion in Slough that she is no longer in her place, made the point that Sikhs in Slough might be arrested unreasonably for carrying the ceremonial weapon that is required by their religion. I would hope that the Slough police are intelligent enough not to make such arrests, and if they are not, no amount of statistical production will make them more intelligent.
  Moreover, as a Scot, I was wearing my kilt and skean-dhu in the Tate gallery and was questioned by a policeman about the knife down my sock, so I explained
  296
  it sensibly to him. Finding out how many Sikhs there are to avoid their being arrested because of their ceremonial sword is about as sensible as finding out how many Scotsmen wearing kilts there are in London who might be arrested for wearing their skean-dhu. There is no sense in it at all. There is certainly no sense in a huge Government exercise such as this one to get round that particular difficulty concerning Sikhs.
  My next point brings us to what some people believe to be the central purpose of finding out differences in religion, and that would be to allow the Government to allocate resources on the basis not of ethnicity, as they do at the moment, but of religion. The standard spending assessment has an ethnicity section, although I am not sure why. If a local authority has a high proportion of ethnic minorities, it will receive more money than those authorities that do not. That is a long-established principle of the division of the annual local government settlement. We have great debates about how important ethnicity is, and whether it is important if a local authority has more black or more Asians. All that is discussed in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions every year when it is divvying up the SSA.
  I have heard nobody in this debate suggest that the ethnicity section of the SSA may be changed because of religion. Nobody is saying that if many Asians turn out to be Christians rather than Muslims, the SSA should be changed to take account of their religion. Anyone who suggested that would be wrong. I can think of no reason at all for saying that someone's religious faith should lead to a change in the Government's allocation of resources.
  Education has been mentioned, and the provision of education with special denominational interests may be a reason for acquiring that detailed information. However, Church of England and Roman Catholic schools make up by far the largest category of such education, and denomination is the one piece of information that the census would not provide. It would not tell us how many Roman Catholics, members of the Church of Scotland or Methodists there were, so it would not help.
  My school, Glasgow high school, had a good ethnic mix, and we made provision for kosher lunches and the rabbi came in to take special services while my father, who was a minister, took the services on behalf of the Church of Scotland. That happened not because we knew the general statistics but because the pupils at my school were roughly 50 per cent. Jewish and 50 per cent. Church of Scotland, and it was a perfectly sensible thing to do.
  Glasgow corporation played a large part in respect of the costs of education and took account of those percentages in providing school dinners. I am glad that it did, and a number of my Jewish friends greatly enjoyed that particularly outstanding feature of Glasgow high school. However, knowing how many Jewish people there were in Glasgow would not have affected the way in which kosher lunches were provided at Glasgow high school. That knowledge would not have provided added useful information to Glasgow corporation, which, by counting heads, knew perfectly well how to work out the provision of kosher lunches at my school.
  So far, no Member has come up with a convincing reason why the delivery of Government services or public services in general would be improved by the Government having such information. In the absence of that positive upside, we must return to what I said at the beginning of

  297
  these brief remarks: if the Government do not need to know, why should they know? I therefore challenge the Minister. He should not give us a lot of stuff about how many people from ethnic minorities we now have in this country, how many different religions we have, how interesting it would be to have such information or how proud people are to be members of a particular minority religion. We do not need to know any of that. We need to know only one thing: why should the Government have information, except when they need it? If they need this information, we need to know precisely why they need it and precisely by what means they would change the delivery of Government services as a result of having it.
  Will the SSA system be changed? Will education provision be changed? Will the policing services be changed? How will the Government take account of the information? Which Government services will they change as a result of having it? That is question No. 1. Question No. 2, of course—[Interruption.] It is interesting that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), finds that very funny. These are serious matters, although he finds it difficult to take them seriously. Perhaps that says more about him than about the debate. Perhaps he would like to intervene. I will happily give way, but I fear that he may not get to his feet.
  The intellectual content of the debate may be above the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps his son, who attends Manchester grammar school, will get to know more about these matters. I hope that Manchester grammar school—one of the finest private schools in England, to which he has chosen to send his son—will take account of the different religions of its pupils. I also hope that he will think twice about laughing during future debates. He looks a little cross.
  There are two fundamental problems: what use the Government will make of the information and the fact that it will be dodgy in the first place. The Minister must answer those questions precisely and specifically. What will the Government do with those statistics?
  12.27 am
  Mr. David Maclean: I consider the Bill to be misconstrued and wrong on a number of grounds. If the national census is important to the Government, and if a number of intrusive questions are to be asked, the Bill should have been introduced by them in their time so that we could have had a debate before 10 o'clock at night. They have used the private Member's Bill route to advocate the measure, given it time after the main business of the day has been dealt with, and introduced it after 10 o'clock. That is offensive to the House.
  That apart, the substance of the Bill is offensive. It is wrong for the state to ask questions about religion. No criminal penalty will be attached to failure to respond, but that does not make the Bill less offensive. Let us be in no doubt: answering the question is not voluntary. When advocating his amendment, whereby there would be no penalty, Lord Weatherill made it clear that he had taken such a route because although, ideally, he would have
  298
  addressed the question of the census being voluntary, he had realised that he could not do that without wrecking the Bill. He had to send the Bill on to this House and said:
  I have reflected with care on what your Lordships have had to say … I feel that we should take the arguments about a voluntary question seriously. In the interests of progressing the matter smoothly, and so that, as the noble Earl and other noble Lords wished, the Bill may pass to another place in a fit condition, I am proposing an amendment which would have the effect of removing the liability to a penalty under Section 8 of the Census Act—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 2000; Vol. 609, c. 364.]
  He was clear that the offence of failing to answer the question would remain, and that replying was not voluntary. The best ruse that he could invent to attempt to deal with voluntariness was removing the penalty.
  I pay tribute to the Government for forcing the matter on to the agenda. It has forced us to examine the Census Act 1920 and question the validity of holding a census. It has forced us to read for the first time the Government's White Paper, "The 2001 Census of Population", which was published in March 1999. We would not have bothered to read that before coming across the Government's ruthless fanaticism for driving the Bill through the House.
  The research that has been conducted on the census suggests to me, as someone who held ministerial responsibility, that the census is an example of research that the Government are good at starting but never know when to end. Like most Government research projects that I came across in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in the Home Office, one of its main conclusions was that more essential research had to be undertaken, at great cost, over the next few years.
  Other colleagues have mentioned John Rickman, the Clerk of the House of Commons. In 1798, he set out the justification for a census. As the House knows, the first census was conducted in 1801. He said that the main reason for a national census was that the intimate knowledge of any country must form the rational basis of legislation and diplomacy. John Rickman believed that the intimate knowledge of a country was necessary for legislation, but not that the state should have intimate knowledge of individuals' religion. Before the House gets carried away with John Rickman's point, it may be worth considering some other points that that distinguished Clerk made as justifications for the census.
  If some hon. Members rely on only one of John Rickman's points for justification, I am entitled to rely on others to show that a census is no longer necessary and that the Bill may therefore be unnecessary. John Rickman's second point was that an industrious population is the basic power and resource of any nation, and that therefore its size needs to be known.
  John Rickman's third reason for a census was that the number of men who were required for conscription to the militia in different areas should reflect the area's population. That point is no longer valid, as the Government have decimated our armed forces. Fourthly, John Rickman claimed that there were defence reasons for wanting to know the number of seamen. The fifth reason was the need to plan the production of corn and thus to know the number of people who had to be fed.
  John Rickman's eighth point may still appear relevant to the Government. He said that, in a time when many feared the disaffection of the people, a census would

  299
  indicate the Government's intention to promote the public good. It seems that John Rickman, that distinguished and neutral Clerk of the House, may have been the first Government spin doctor because of his idea of doing something that the people would like. He said that the true size of the population, even after the effects of war, was probably far greater than the usual estimates and that that knowledge would
  be the most consoling gratification to every lover of his country.
  Another reason that John Rickman gave was that the life insurance industry would be stimulated by the results of the census. I shall not trouble the House with the full 12 reasons. However, they have probably been quoted in a slightly different form to Treasury Ministers and other Ministers over the past 200 years. Once Governments begin to undertake a huge statistical collection, they can never find the will to stop. All Governments of whatever political persuasion will always find the justification for asking yet more questions and processing yet more information, including information that they have not a hope of using or have no firm intention of using, but may come in handy one day.
  Two hundred years later, in their White Paper, "The 2001 Census of Population", the Government have slightly different reasons from John Rickman. They state:
  Government, local and health authorities, commercial businesses and the professions need reliable information on the number and characteristics of people and households if they are to conduct many of their activities effectively. This need is currently best met by conducting a census every ten years covering the whole of the population, and by updating the population estimates each year between censuses using data from … births, marriages and deaths … and … estimates of migration.
  The Government continue:
  However, over time, such data, especially on migration, accumulate inaccuracies, and a regular census is necessary to provide information for revising the annual population estimates.
  The Government must have a census in order to revise annual population estimates. Why? Why must the Government revise the annual population estimates and conduct a census? One statistical exercise is carried out to inform yet another statistical exercise, to which there may be very little point in the age of the Internet, the market research data available, and the huge amount of other information that each and every one of us must provide to various Government Departments for specific purposes.
  Mr. Sayeed: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. There were, I think, two censuses while he was a member of the Government. Did he protest against either of those?
  Mr. Maclean: Of course not. I paid no attention to them at all, because in those earlier censuses there was no question of my fundamental human liberties being infringed by the Government asking about my religion. If the Government did not propose to ask about my religion or the religion of my constituents, I would probably have ignored the present census. It would not have been at the forefront of my mind. Because the Government have been obsessed with getting the Bill through and getting the religion question asked, I and no doubt some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been rather suspicious of what the Government are up to.
  300
  Why is that vital? I did not think that the Government were proposing any other changes, but my hon. Friend's intervention comes at exactly the right point in my speech. I was about to say that until I began to look into the matter, I thought that the only change that the Government intended to make was to ask the question about religion. However, when I studied the March 1999 White Paper, "The 2001 Census of Population", I found that the religion question is not the only change that the Government propose.
  The Government tell us in the White Paper that
  there will be a slight increase in the number of questions compared with the 1991 Census.
  They go on to state that the
  significant changes from 1991 in the questions proposed are: new individual questions on general health, provision of unpaid personal care, time since last paid employment, size of employer's organisation
  and the question on religion, if the Bill gets through tonight. There will also be revisions to the questions on relationship within the household, ethnic group and one's qualifications.
  The White Paper states that
  the Government will continue to consider whether or not to include a question on income, having regard to the risks to the Census as a whole in so doing … the Government will make final proposals on whether or not the question should be included in the Census itself once research into possible means of securing relevant information from alternative sources has been completed.
  When the Minister replies to the debate, it would be relevant for her to tell us the Government's intentions with regard to a question on income. Although the Bill proposes to add a question on religion to the 1920 Act, we cannot make a judgment on the single question on religion without knowing the Government's intentions on the other questions that they propose to add.
  Mr. Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The questions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers were debated by a statutory instrument Committee of this House and passed without a vote.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order is timely, as I was beginning to feel that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was going wide of the Bill, which deals with one particular point. I suspect that it is outside the scope of the debate to put the questions that he has been putting to the Minister.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very helpful. I was approaching the matter cautiously as I did not want to stray from the subject of the debate. If the Minister can confirm the intervention by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), that would be helpful. If all the other matters have been dealt with, we can focus purely on the one question before us tonight: the new question on religion—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am the one who, from the Chair, is trying to help the right hon. Gentleman to focus on this particular point.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for that help once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  301
  The question that we must address tonight is whether we give a Second Reading to a Bill that includes, for the first time, an intrusive and offensive question asking people to state their religion. I shall not return to previously traced ground, but if other matters have already been added to the 2001 census, it helps us to consider whether this is one more straw that may break the camel's back.
  It is indicative of the nature of this Government, and relevant to the point that I was making, which was that, like all Governments, they want to ask more questions. They want to collect more statistics, whether they can use them or not.
  Mr. Bercow: They do not like answering, though.
  Mr. Maclean: That is true.
  When one reads the explanatory notes to the Bill, one gets the feeling that the Government are scratching around trying to find some general justifications for the offensive question on religion that they are asking. As has been alluded to by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight, the answer is out there, plain for all to see. Various religious groups are quite clear about the purpose of the question, because they have been demanding that the Government ask it, certain in the knowledge that they will encourage all their religious adherents to answer it and that most of the more idle Christian population will not bother to answer it, or will find it offensive.
  Many people fill in forms by stating that they are Church of England Christians. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, when, in the Army, one is asked to state one's religion, one picks the easiest answer. Those serving in Scotland pick Church of Scotland, and those serving in England pick Church of England. Many of those who are not strict religious adherents to a particular faith will find the question offensive and may not answer it. We shall therefore get distorted results.
  Some of my hon. Friends have already suggested that the reason the Muslim community is so keen on this question is because it intends to ensure that all its religious adherents answer it faithfully and thoroughly, so that a maximum score will be marked down for some of those religions. On the other hand, a large number of members of the Christian religion may not answer the question—they may decline to answer it or not bother to answer it. We shall therefore get distorted results.
  We can see from the explanatory notes to the Bill that, on the basis of those distorted results, the Government intend to allocate resources according to some of the answers that they get to the religious question. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) may have been right in the assertions that he made earlier—that the Bill has some dangerous precedents, that there is a danger that it will cause distortion, and that the Government will seek to move funding away from rural areas to inner-city areas, where they pronounce that they have identified a particular religious minority desperately in need of financial help. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is no good Labour Members saying "Oh, oh." We have seen it time and again. The Government did that with police funding,
  302
  directing funding to inner-city areas. After conducting research that showed that there was a rural sparsity problem, they still refused to allocate proper funding to rural areas.
  Mr. Forth: Can my right hon. Friend imagine any circumstances in which taxpayers' money is likely to be diverted by the Government to a Christian community as a result of answers that might be given to the census?
  Mr. Maclean: Of course one cannot envisage that in the case of the present Government, but it would be wrong in any event. It would be entirely wrong to direct resources to an area containing a large Christian population, and away from any other area. That should not be a relevant consideration. When my Muslim constituents and my Christian constituents are waiting for cataract operations, and when the waiting list is constantly growing under this Government, their religion is irrelevant; it is the shortage of resources in the health service that matters. I would find it deeply offensive if I discovered that any of my constituents who were members of a minority faith had been given poorer treatment—or better treatment—because of their religion. Religion should be irrelevant to the determining of resources from either local authorities or central Government.
  There is a smell here. It comes from what some Labour Members have said, from some of what has been written in the press, and from some of the pronouncements made by members of ethnic communities. There is a suggestion that the Bill, and the amendment that it proposes, are seen by them as yet another vehicle for the distortion of Government funding, and as a stick with which to beat the Government. When they get the figures that suit them—showing high populations of certain religious communities in certain parts of the country, in comparison with, perhaps, Christian communities or others—they will use it to extort funds from the Government. The Government know that. If that is their purpose—and we know that it is—they should come clean tonight and simply say so.
  Let us not pretend that there is a vital need for the statistical information. Let the Government come clean and tell the House that they want the Bill to be given a Second Reading because they want to buy votes in certain parts of the country.
  12.45 am
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have plenty of time. Let me begin by saying what a pleasure it is to see here the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), the deputy Chief Whip. It is fascinating to note that he can be so upset by mention of the fact that he is a patron of Manchester grammar school. I think that he said "Cheap" 20 times; let us see how many times he says it now. However, it is nice to see him on the Front Bench, and it is nice to see him listening so carefully.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to stick closely to the terms of the Bill. I do not think that gratuitous comments of that kind are helpful to the debate.
  Mr. Paterson: Some factual errors were made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who, as a

  303
  Catholic, should know that he has the privilege of being a Member of Parliament thanks to a Conservative Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, whose Government passed the Catholic emancipation Act—the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829.
  Earlier, the hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that this party, of which I am proud to be a member, had not spoken up, and had never made any progress, on the rights of religious minorities in this country. I think it important to get across that the first real breakthrough after the glorious revolution was the emancipation Act, which gave Catholics the right to be members of the armed forces and Members of this House.
  The real history of this country lies in our ability to adopt wave after wave of immigrants from a kaleidoscopic variety of backgrounds and cultures, and to integrate them in our society without conflict. That is a record of which we should be extraordinarily proud. Several Members mentioned Jews. The last pogrom in this country took place in York in 1260; no other country can emulate that record. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) nodding. I believe that he comes from a Jewish culture.
  Mr. Bercow: So do I.
  Mr. Paterson: As does my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  The history of Jewish immigrants symbolises—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This historical passage is going outside the scope of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not been able to relate it to this narrow measure. I must request him to talk about the Bill, and leave remoter issues.
  Mr. Paterson: I am grateful for that. The point that I make is directly related to the Bill because the Bill seeks to carve the country up into ghettos. It is a recipe for this country's ghettoisation. The trick that we have learned over the centuries is to assimilate different cultures. The Huguenots, for example, came over after the revocation of the edict of Nantes. They kept their religion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say seriously to the hon. Gentleman that he would do well to take heed of the rulings that I am giving from the Chair. If he does not, I will require him to cease.
  Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Just sit down.
  Mr. Paterson: I will speak. We have plenty of time.
  The real lesson is that the measure turns its back on our successful assimilations of previous centuries. What is worse, it is driven, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, by the power of attracting public funds to ethnic groups.
  304
  We already know that, since the war, the Welsh and the Scots have managed to paint themselves as afflicted minorities driven down by the English. As a result, they receive 25 per cent. more public funds than they raise in taxation.
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the House as a whole that we will have a properly conducted debate. Determining orderliness will continue to be the responsibility of the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Paterson: Thank you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The information that will be gleaned from the census will probably not be valid. We have the extraordinary subsection (1A), which says that
  no person shall be liable to a penalty under subsection (1) for refusing or neglecting to state any particulars in respect of religion.
  Mr. Swayne: Can my hon. Friend assist me? Although no penalty applies for failing to answer the question, clearly, the penalty of a £1,000 fine still applies to those who give false information with respect to the question, but how is that to be policed? Ethnic information is certainly verifiable. I cannot understand how religious information can be verifiable. Surely one's religion is what one says it is.
  Mr. Paterson: That is a pertinent point. It calls into question those who do not want to give their religious denomination and reply by stating, incorrectly, "None." That is a valid point.
  I have listened carefully to contributions by Members on both sides of the House, but I have not yet heard any practical advantages from putting through the measure. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said that the police would learn the number of Sikhs in Slough. It is their business to know how many Sikhs there are in Slough. They should know already. The fact that some faulty information will almost certainly be gleaned from the census will not benefit policing in Slough. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Lady trying to intervene?
  Fiona Mactaggart indicated dissent.
  Mr. Paterson: Apparently she is not. There is no practical gain. There is the ability to gain faulty information and to draw conclusions that may have damaging effects on this country long term. For that reason, I shall oppose the measure.
  12.54 am
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I see that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who I believe is a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, is just leaving the Chamber.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for MidBedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) for introducing and explaining the Bill. I share the disappointment of many hon. Members and of the faith communities that the Bill was not able to receive an unopposed Second Reading on the previous occasions when it was presented before the House.

  305
  The Government recognise the importance of having a clear picture of the diversity of faith communities in the United Kingdom, to make it possible to deal with the concerns and needs of all sections of the community. [Interruption.] The census is, indeed, a once in a decade opportunity to do that, reliably and consistently, for local areas across the country.
  I am grateful to some of my hon. Friends, and to the hon. Members for MidBedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), for shedding the only light cast on the subject in this long debate—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I say to the House that the debate will be assisted if there are no more sedentary comments?
  Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Rotherham (Mr. Mac Shane) spoke about the value of the census and, particularly, of asking the question on religion.
  I remind hon. Members that the explanatory notes explain very clearly—that is what they are for—why the information is being collected. Paragraphs 2 to 5 explain the background to the matter. Bearing in mind the hour and the time that we have spent discussing the matter, I shall not read out the paragraphs, especially as some of them have already been quoted.
  The basic reason for collecting such information, however, is so that it can be used to inform planning, policy and services. As some hon. Members have recognised positively in their speeches, the United Kingdom is now a very ethnically and religiously diverse community. We need that information to provide the right services while recognising people's individual ethnic and religious perspectives.
  Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Johnson: I shall not give way. I have only just started my speech, and am attempting to reply to a two-hour debate in which many points have been made.
  Some hon. Members have repeatedly but very mistakenly used the word "intrusive" to describe the question. Such a description is a travesty of the situation. The Bill emphasises that answering the question is voluntary. The form will also make it clear that it is a voluntary question, and we make it absolutely plain that there will be no penalty whatever for not answering it. Opposition Members have not recognised, as they should have done, that there is no intrusiveness in a question that is purely voluntary.
  Many Opposition Members have maintained that the record of those who answer the question will be scrutinised by the Government. However, the Government will not come anywhere near any of that information, whether it is provided by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) or by any other hon. Member or member of the community. The Office for National Statistics collects that information, the confidentiality of which is guaranteed for a full 100 years, and which is used purely for statistical purposes.
  306
  I was therefore shocked to hear many hon. Members effectively making an attack not only on the value of the question value but on the overall notion of the census. Many Departments think that the question would be extremely useful in planning services. Moreover, as the hon. Member for MidBedfordshire said, very many religious organisations have actively supported—indeed, campaigned—for the question to be included in the census. They have done so because they think that the information is important.
  Recently, I communicated with organisations on the Bill's failure—because of objections by only a couple of Opposition Members—to make progress under the private Members' Bill procedure. I received representations from organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, the Bahai Community of the United Kingdom, the Council of the Churches for Britain and Ireland, the Jain Samaj Europe, Inter-Faith Network for the United Kingdom, the Inner Cities Religious Council, the Churches Commission for Inter-Faith Relations and the archbishops of the Church of England.
  Mr. Forth: Will the Minister indicate which religious groups will benefit from the distribution of resources resulting from the census information proposed?
  Miss Johnson: The point about the collection of information is that it is to enable us to plan services in the best possible way for the entire community, of whatever religious, ethnic or other background—just as we collect all sorts of other information on the basis of the census. Such information is used in planning many services.
  I was shocked for much of the debate because Conservative Members were displaying quite a few prejudices: their true colours were very clearly revealed. Many other people will be shocked by some of the remarks that have been made. "Shocked" is the most appropriate word in this context.
  Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Johnson: I shall not give way at the moment.
  The right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) were both Ministers in previous Tory Governments. They were both heavily dependent—if they were not, it is even more shocking—on census data in the planning of the services for which they were responsible and in respect of which officials in their Departments would have brought forward information closely based on the information collected in the census.
  I was intrigued by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the fact that the Bill was receiving some Government support. I have been reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) of the considerable co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman when he was an Education Minister with the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill, a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend which reached the statute book in 1995 with a considerable degree of Government co-operation and support, including the right hon. Gentleman's strong support in the Committee that dealt with it. So I am not surprised if the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in some difficulty with the responses that rightly came from Labour Members to some of his remarks.

  307
  The right hon. Gentleman related the religious question to the ethnicity question, which, as a Schools Minister, he repeatedly used as a basis for funding schools and determining standard spending assessments—again a clear indication that such questions can be useful. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman showed no caution when he was a Minister in thinking that there was relevance in using such statistics in order to determine something.
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Miss Johnson: I have already given way to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
  Mr. Fabricant: It is called courtesy.
  Miss Johnson: I shall give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I was not sure until the very last moment whether the hon. Lady intended to give way to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), but we do not need any further help from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).
  Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I could see in her eyes that she was just about to, which is why I persisted.
  The Minister has said several times that the information will be useful in the delivery of Government services. She has now briefly mentioned SSAs, and she seems to be indicating that information about the religious breakdown of the nation will be used in the delivery of local government services through the SSA mechanism. Will she confirm whether the current study of SSAs being carried out by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take account of the information which will be gained next year with regard to the religious affiliations of the people surveyed?
  Miss Johnson: Those are not questions to be determined tonight. We are here to give the Bill a Second Reading. I am well aware that a number of points that hon. Members have raised are matters which can be discussed later or which will be more appropriately dealt with when the Bill—if it receives support this evening, as I trust it will—goes to a Standing Committee for proper, detailed consideration.
  When it approves the Bill, Parliament will bring census legislation in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Subject to the passing of the necessary secondary legislation, that will enable information on religion to be available from the 2001 census throughout the United Kingdom, and will have the added advantage of giving us a United Kingdom picture.
  Well-informed hon. Members will know that the draft orders for the other aspects of the 2001 census have already been debated elsewhere in the House. As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) remarked, those orders were agreed without a Division. From that, it is clear that they were not considered controversial.
  To underline the importance that the Government attach to the need for information on religion to be collected, we have agreed to provide time to facilitate the further
  308
  progress of the Bill. The Government will do everything possible to do that in time for a question on religion to be included in the 2001 census in England and Wales.
  Subject to the Bill passing through the House and receiving Royal Assent, the Government propose to lay before Parliament an amendment to the census order providing specifically for particulars in respect of religion to be added to those that have already received the approval of this House for inclusion in the 2001 census.
  Conservative Members refer to the explanatory notes when it suits them, but seem reluctant to read them in their entirety. Paragraph 13 states that the Office for National Statistics has taken legal advice, which holds that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights and meets the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  The Office for National Statistics also consulted widely about the inclusion of a question on religion. The religious affiliation sub-group of the 2001 census content working group comprised members of a wide range of faith organisations. As well as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, the organisations involved included, among others, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Network of Sikh Organisations, the Buddhist Society, the National Council of Hindu Temples, and the Zoroastrians, as well as a number of representatives from the Christian Churches in Britain.
  We have assessed the public reaction to a question on religion in the census. Some Conservative Members seemed fearful about pride in this matter, but I believe that many people are proud of their religious affiliation, whatever it might be, and will want to answer the question.
  The Government have been mindful of the particular sensitivity of such a question. We took careful note of the concerns expressed in the House of Lords when the Bill was debated there. Consequently, the Government supported an amendment to the Bill that would remove the statutory penalty for people who refuse or neglect to state in their census returns the particulars in respect of religion. I should make it clear, however, that the statutory requirement—under the terms of the Census Act 1920—to respond to all other census questions would remain.
  Mr. Tyrie: The Minister has asserted that the question will be left voluntary, but Lord McIntosh did not agree. He told the House of Lords that it would not be a good idea, because
  making a question voluntary seriously affects the response not only to the question itself where response bias could devalue the information obtained, but also as regards other questions because people are confused about some questions being voluntary and others being compulsory.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1717]
  Does not the Minister agree that making the question voluntary devalues the census?
  Miss Johnson: As the Minister most closely involved with the Office for National Statistics, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the statisticians are strongly motivated to ensure that we have as good a statistical result as possible. The Bill would not be before the House if it did not have the ONS's support as being perfectly sustainable, and the outcomes—
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you with a technical point, but the

  309
  Minister who is in charge of the Bill has told the House that it is compatible with the European convention on human rights. You will know that clause 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires that a Minister of the Crown must make a declaration of compatibility in writing, and before Second Reading. The only declaration of compatibility in this case is in paragraph 13 of the explanatory notes, which contains a legal opinion taken by the Office for National Statistics. That is not the same as a declaration of compatibility by the Minister.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The occupant of the Chair has absolutely no responsibility for ensuring that these matters are dealt with in the correct way: it is not a matter for the Chair.
  Miss Johnson: This is, of course, a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Before I conclude, it is worth mentioning that the 1851 census included a question that is sometimes thought to be about religion, although that is not strictly the case. The census included a voluntary survey of churches, chapels and other places of worship with respect to the numbers attending services on the census day and the average attending in the month before, together with some other information about places of worship.
  Perhaps we can learn from some of the ideas that lay behind that census. In the first census of the new millennium, we need the census information that will be collected to reflect the religious diversity that is now very much a part of the United Kingdom, to ensure that we accurately reflect that in the services that we provide and that we get it right for all communities and all religions.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 10.

  Division No. 238]

  [1.12 am

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Chaytor, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clelland, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cohen, Harry

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Coleman, Iain

  Benton, Joe

  Colman, Tony

  Berry, Roger

  Connarty, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blackman, Liz

  Cousins, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cranston, Ross

  Blizzard, Bob

  Crausby, David

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Borrow, David

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Burden, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davidson, Ian

  Cann, Jamie

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Caton, Martin

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Dawson, Hilton

  310

  Day, Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Norri's, Dan

  Drew, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Efford, Clive

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Flynn, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Pickthall, Colin

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Pike, Peter L

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Pope, Greg

  Goggins, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Purchase, Ken

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Randall, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Rapson, Syd

  Hayes, John

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Heald, Oliver

  Roy, Frank

  Healey, John

  Ruane, Chris

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Heppell, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Hesford, Stephen

  Sawford, Phil

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Hurst, Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Jamieson, David

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

  Jenkins, Brian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Stevenson, George

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Jones, Martyn (Ctwyd S)

  Stringer, Graham

  Kemp, Fraser

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Kidney, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  (Dewsbury)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Laxton, Bob

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Lepper, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Levitt, Tom

  Timms, Stephen

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Lidington, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Lock, David

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Love, Andrew

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  McDonnell, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  McFall, John

  Watts, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Webb, Steve

  McIsaac, Shona

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  McNulty, Tony

  Wilson, Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Wood, Mike

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Woodward, Shaun

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Merron, Gillian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Miller, Andrew

  Moftatt, Laura

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Mullin, Chris

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  311

  Chope, Christopher

  Paterson, Owen

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Fabricant, Michael

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Gray, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Nichdls, Patrick

  Mr. Edward Leigh.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  COMMITTEES
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put motions 5 and 6 together.
  Ordered,

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON BROADCASTING
  That Mr. George Galloway be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown be added to the Committee.
  EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
  That Mr. Allan Rogers be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Bill Rammell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  PETITIONS

    Basic State Pension
    1.26 am
    Mr. Tom Levitt: I rise to present a petition bearing the signatures of 1,600 members and supporters of the Glossop, Hadfield and District Pensioners Association, who declare that pensioners in the Glossop and Hadfield area of High Peak are dissatisfied with the 75p rise in the basic state pension.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House do address the basic level of state pension as soon as possible and in future restore the link between the basic pension and the annual rise in earnings.
    The petition is signed on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Raymond Matthews, secretary of the Glossop and Hadfield Pensioners Association.
    To lie upon the Table.

    BSE Incinerator
    1.27 am
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: I rise to present a petition collected by Councillor Cynthia Derek and Mrs. Sandra Rocker, comprising 2,000 signatures of the citizens of Burscough in West Lancashire, which states:
    That the citizens of the area entirely and utterly oppose the proposed BSE Incinerator which private interests wish to open on Burscough Industrial Estate, in that it is a totally inappropriate position; would pose threats to the health of the local population; would severely damage the horticultural industry in the vicinity and would put at risk other firms on the Industrial Estate, particularly those engaged in the food industry.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do request the Secretary of State for DETR to ensure that the proposal is subjected to normal local planning procedures and that the ambiguity in the Planning Guidance covering Incinerators be amended and corrected to protect citizens all over the U.K.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray …
    To lie upon the Table.

    Combined Heat and Power
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    1.28 am
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Even at this time of night, it is a great pleasure to speak about combined heat and power, which has been called the Cinderella of energy policy because its many environmental, economic and social benefits have not been fully recognised. Recently, that has changed and CHP is at the core of the UK's drive to attain diverse, secure and sustainable energy.
    Combined heat and power enables the supply of electricity and heat, usually in the form of steam, from a single fuel source at high conversion efficiencies—typically 70 to 80 per cent. Demand is met by CHP at a lower level of fuel consumption, generating significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions. CHP can also be linked to community heating. A network of heating pipes can supply homes, businesses and a wide range of other consumers. CHP is essentially about energy efficiency. Conventional power stations are typically 34 per cent. efficient. The much-talked about gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine power stations are, according to the Department of Trade and Industry, on average just 48 per cent. efficient. Only when CHP plant is brought into play do we get efficiencies of more than 70 per cent.—and up to 80 per cent. with some small-scale CHP schemes.
    In the past few days, the royal commission on environmental pollution has published a detailed and thorough analysis of what we need to do if we are to be serious about tackling climate change. It calls for reductions of up to 60 per cent. in UK carbon emissions and sets out a series of scenarios for achieving that. It says that we need a new way of looking at energy policy—one that does not focus just on electricity production, but recognises and develops the market for heat. In that context, the royal commission has emphasised that CHP is a technology of which we need to make much wider use. Many global corporations increasingly recognise, too, that their future lies in part with combined heat and power. It is significant that a major global energy player, ABB, should announce just two weeks ago that it was reinventing itself by divesting itself of more conventional power-generating technologies and that, in future, it would focus on knowledge-driven products. For ABB, that includes wind power, micro-turbines and, in the context of this debate, combined heat and power. Other global companies like ABB, such as BP Amoco, are already at the fore of developing their CHP capacity. I am sure that more big energy players will now follow the global market leaders.
    Indeed, in the UK, CHP is at work at more than 1,300 sites, including the Palace of Westminster, throughout Whitehall and at Kodak in my borough where many of my constituents work. Kodak has its own 70 MW combined heat and power plant. Like other major industrial sites that have switched on to CHP, its scheme saves it money directly and helps the site compete effectively by reducing a core business cost. I gather that, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister, both Sunderland general hospital and the Crowtree leisure centre have put combined heat and power schemes to work.
    314
    I am delighted to say that the Labour party has had a long-standing commitment to CHP. In our manifesto, we said that we would be
    committed to an energy policy designed to promote cleaner, more efficient use and production, including a new and strong drive to develop … combined heat and power.
    Just six weeks after we took office, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched, with the backing of the Combined Heat and Power Association and the Confederation of British Industry, a high-level campaign designed to raise awareness of CHP in the minds of business leaders. We said, too, that we would introduce a pro-CHP bias in the planning regime for new power plants and that we would set a target of at least 10,000 MW of CHP by 2010. Both those commitments are in place and 1,400 MW of new CHP capacity has been approved in the past three years, although, as I shall outline later, it remains to be seen how much further capacity will be built in current market conditions.
    Each new CHP scheme produces its own set of benefits, with distinct rewards for the businesses with the foresight to commit to CHP. One particular example is Kemsley Mill, a major UK paper producer, where PowerGen CHP has installed and financed an 80 MW CHP scheme. Some £4.5 million per annum of energy savings have been achieved, with a reduction in primary energy use of 31 per cent. Carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 320 kilotonnes per annum, sulphur oxide emissions have been eliminated and nitrogen oxide emissions reduced by 92 per cent. That has improved local air quality, and traffic movements have been reduced and noise levels have come down significantly.
    CHP also offers us considerable opportunity for our social exclusion agenda. St. Pancras Housing is one of more than 60 residential CHP schemes that the Combined Heat and Power Association has helped to develop. The St. Pancras scheme, at this pioneering housing association's head office next to Euston station, has cut the energy bills of 100 tenants by 20 per cent. Three years ago, it was able to get rid of standing charges, and the metering system that it uses puts to shame the ones that many of us have at home. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that, in the work of the Government's ministerial group on fuel poverty, the real benefit of CHP and community heating is not overlooked and is reinforced.
    Crucially, CHP also benefits the environment. The CHP industry has cut UK carbon emissions by over 9 million tonnes in the past 10 years. Every gigawatt of CHP that is put to work cuts UK carbon emissions by some 1,000 tonnes, making it one of the most cost-effective ways of making those cuts; hence the royal commission's strong support for CHP in its report. The Government believe that over half of all industrial carbon savings could be delivered by the wider use of CHP.
    CHP also helps us to build a competitive economy. In the right circumstances, local generation is a key way of improving business performance by reducing costs. It does that by removing the need for costly long-distance transmission of power and by being highly efficient in the process. The challenge, surely, is to ensure that we have a regulatory framework that continues to deliver and enhance those rewards. I was pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe confirmed that the Office of Gas and Electricity

    315
    Markets will focus on that in its new environmental action plan. I hope that Ministers will now concentrate on monitoring Ofgem's implementation of that action plan.
    A practical example of that exists at BP Energy, which has worked with English China Clays at its Marsh Mills and Par Harbour sites in the south-west and put CHP to work, delivering energy savings of some £972,000 per annum.
    CHP also holds out the prospect of vital new investment and extra jobs. The UK CHP industry has invested over £1 billion in helping the UK to improve its business performance through the better use of combined heat and power. Achieving our new CHP target will, in turn, stimulate some £3 billion of new private sector investment.
    Energy for Sustainable Development, a leading EU energy consultancy, suggested in a recent report that if we can achieve just two thirds of our CHP target by 2010, there could be an estimated 34,000 new jobs in the CHP sector.
    Local councils also have a crucial role to play in the development of CHP, and I welcome the specific support that the Government have already given to the development of new CHP schemes in Southampton, Manchester and Tower Hamlets, all of which have developed effective partnerships with the private sector. Manchester city council and the London borough of Tower Hamlets have private finance initiative pathfinder schemes, which have secured the support needed from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to attract significant private sector investment.
    The scheme that London Electricity has developed for the Barkantine estate in Tower Hamlets will, I hope, help to demonstrate how CHP can assist in harnessing the private sector to tackle the challenge of social exclusion that blights all too many inner-city communities. I hope that the Government will take forward and recognise that potential in their work on fuel poverty.
    Despite that, only a small part of the potential for CHP is being exploited. The energy technology support unit has suggested that there is the economic potential almost to quadruple the use of CHP in the UK. Figures from the Building Research Establishment suggest that 1 million homes could be connected to CHP by 2010. BG Technology estimates that, in the long term, between 4 million and 6 million houses would be suitable for domestic CHP.
    Why are we under-achieving on that potential? Uncertainty in the market is making investment decisions difficult. Talk of electricity prices falling by between 10 and 30 per cent. in the next couple of years and predictions of medium-term gas prices rising by almost as much add to the uncertainty of the impact of the new electricity trading arrangements. Inevitably, customers want to wait and see what happens.
    Essentially, the market arrangements that Ofgem is busily building seem to focus largely on those with the capacity to trade large volumes of power in new computer-based energy markets. The trading screen seems to be replacing the reality of a power station. Smaller players do not have the capacity for year-round, 24-hour trading arrangements. As the Director General of Ofgem has outlined to the Combined Heat and Power Association, more work needs to be done to enable the small players sensibly to band together and trade. That
    316
    problem has been reinforced by the sheer costs for small players of getting involved and representing their position effectively. I hope that the Minister will urge his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry seriously to consider the issue of market inequality among the players in the industry.
    CHP is about long-term decisions: the short-termism of today's energy market is therefore a key issue which the Government will need to consider in their forthcoming CHP strategy. All arms of the Government, too, need to make sure that they are consistent in their view of the industry's potential. There is concern that we do not have the measures in place to achieve the Government's new 10 GW target. I understand that the DTI's energy projections appear to be based on an assumption that the 10 GW CHP target will not be met. I also understand that that view was echoed in a recent address to the Society of British Gas Industries.
    The Government's climate change consultation paper also appears to place a less firm emphasis on CHP than the DETR's previous consultation document, despite strong support for CHP in the responses. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will remain resolute in their commitment to the CHP target and give the industry the confidence it needs to invest by making sure that their message is consistent. Some further concerted and cross-cutting departmental action is needed.
    In his pre-Budget statement to the House last November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that CHP would be exempt from the new climate change levy. That was widely welcomed, but it now seems that Customs and Excise is determined to put up the price of CHP power by putting the levy on power exports from CHP schemes. That seems entirely illogical in environmental terms and will significantly distort inter-company competition as some companies will get power levy-free when they use it themselves. Those that buy it in across the grid system from a CHP plant will have to pay the levy. I urge the Government to do what the Chancellor said last November and just exempt CHP from the levy. That is essential to counter the current market conditions—in particular, gas prices are rising—and the potential impact of the new electricity trading arrangements.
    The excellent Utilities Bill, which is going through Parliament, will set the market framework for at least the next 10 years. In particular, the new energy efficiency standard of performance provisions are most welcome. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that they will give Ministers the power, should they choose to use it, to introduce arrangements for CHP similar to those planned for renewables. We also need to ensure that the Government have the powers to take a lead on embedded generation. The royal commission specifically said:
    Embedded generation represents a major strategic challenge for the National Grid Co plc, both technically and financially as well as for the distribution companies. We did not see any signs that the company has yet appreciated the scale of the challenge or begun to take the steps needed to place itself in a position to respond to it …
    The commission recommends that the Government should therefore take the lead in addressing those challenges. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to comment on that.
    I also hope that the Government will reinforce their drive for CHP in their planning consents regime for larger power plant to encourage power station developments,

    317
    but not just to take the easy option and build less efficient electricity-only power plant. We need to encourage companies to seek out customers for heat—or, indeed, for cooling—and in doing so move beyond purely short-term rewards to achieve the best environmental impact possible from the fuels that they use.
    Focusing on CHP presents the Government with a real opportunity to create the conditions for a sustainable and competitive energy market and to lead the world in the drive for an entirely different energy agenda that brings together the benefits of liberalisation and the challenge of environmental change.
    1.43 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) has raised an important issue and I shall do my best to reply to the points that he made. However, we may have to follow one or two up in correspondence.
    Combined heat and power cuts energy costs for industry, business, the public sector and domestic users and significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions. It has a vital part to play in helping the United Kingdom to meet its climate change commitments. That is why the Government are committed to promoting the widest use of CHP wherever possible. Only yesterday—although by now it must have been the day before yesterday—I visited Hickson and Welch, a chemical company in Castleford, where an impressive new CHP system is under construction. As my hon. Friend said, there are several such schemes in Sunderland. He referred to the one at Sunderland general hospital, which I opened some years ago.
    The United Kingdom's combined heat and power capacity has already doubled in the past 10 years. It is now reducing energy costs by more than £500 million annually and cutting CO2 by approximately 4 million tonnes of carbon a year. Some of the biggest savings are in core industries such as steel, chemicals, paper and food and drink production. United Kingdom business and the environment are therefore benefiting. As my hon. Friend rightly said, CHP and community heating also have a part to play in alleviating fuel poverty.
    As part of the draft climate change programme, the Government have announced that the target is at least to double CHP capacity to 10,000 MW in the coming decade. We are taking practical measures to encourage CHP. For example, the exemption of good-quality CHP from the climate change levy is the clearest possible evidence of our support. Schemes that fully meet the good-quality criteria that we are setting will not pay a levy on their fuel inputs, heat outputs or on electricity generated when it is used on site or sold directly to other users. That provides a strong incentive to invest in CHP. However, I duly note my hon. Friend's comments on the restriction on electricity exports, and I can assure him that the Government will keep the levy's operation under review.
    Combined heat and power will also be crucial to helping energy-intensive users to meet efficiency targets under negotiated climate change levy agreements. Indeed, that will be vital in some sectors if the agreed energy or
    318
    carbon savings are to be achieved. Eighty per cent. discounts on the levy are the reward for sectors that deliver the agreed targets.
    Combined heat and power is one of the technologies that is eligible for enhanced capital allowances. In 2001–02, £100 million will be available, and up to £140 million the following year, with more to follow if take-up is good. As energy services companies make up a large part of the CHP market, we are considering changes to legislation so they are not excluded. Low-carbon technologies, such as CHP, will also be promoted by a new body called the Carbon Trust.
    My hon. Friend asked whether the new electricity trading arrangements would be CHP friendly. I can confirm that they will. We are working with the Department of Trade and Industry and the regulator, Ofgem, to ensure that the new electricity trading arrangements allow smaller, locally based embedded generators, such as CHP and renewables, to operate efficiently.
    Ofgem and the Government are looking ahead to, and preparing the UK for, a future in which embedded generation plays a much larger part than it does at the moment. We want to ensure that CHP and other embedded generation is treated on the same basis as conventional generation. We also want to ensure that it has fair access to the wider networks at fair prices, and that it is fairly rewarded for the benefits that it brings to the network through its focus on local solutions on sustainable energy.
    Our work on embedded generation will cover individual domestic customers and renewables, which also need effective access to the market. It will consider net metering arrangements. That exercise involves the embedded operators and users, generators, distribution network operators, the Government, and the regulator. There is consensus that energy is moving into a new world, and we want UK systems, structures and regulatory regimes to be ahead and ready.
    The stricter consents policy for power stations has had a positive effect on CHP. As my hon. Friend rightly says, some 1,400 MW of CHP capacity have been approved in the past three years, including more than 1,200 MW under the stricter consents regime. We expect the majority of that to be built. Indeed, some 500 MW are already under construction and expected to come on line this year or next year. However, as with all commercial decisions, it is for the companies concerned to decide when, and whether, to proceed with any given project.
    This stricter policy is due to be lifted as soon as the new electricity trading arrangements are in place, which is expected to be in the autumn. We have restated our strong commitment to CHP and have made it clear that we will require developers seeking consent to show that they have explored the opportunities to use CHP. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that in a statement on 17 April. We shall be discussing with developers the information needed, and I note my hon. Friend's comment that the system must be robust.
    Our action in derating electricity generating plant and machinery in good-quality CHP schemes from April next year is further evidence of our commitment to treat CHP fairly, putting all CHP schemes in industry in line with those in the generating industry.

    319
    I can confirm that the Government are taking powers under the Utilities Bill to set energy efficiency standards of performance obligations on energy suppliers to encourage and assist consumers to use less energy. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that CHP is defined as a form of energy efficiency, so energy companies can attain their obligations through supporting CHP—for example, in community heating.
    The Government can also set specific CHP obligations, if they wish to do so. At present, we do not envisage that being necessary. We believe that the CHP exemption from the climate change levy, exemption from business rates, enhanced capital allowances, the review of CHP's access to the grid and other measures will deliver the new CHP target, but the power is available, if it is needed.
    Studies have shown that the economic potential for CHP in the UK is between 10,000 and 20,000 MW—that is, up to 25 per cent. of the UK's electricity generation capacity by 2010. We have set our new target of at least 10,000 MW in this context, and we remain convinced that it is realistic and achievable. The discussion at the Society of British Gas Industries which my hon. Friend quoted has been misreported.
    We will shortly publish a comprehensive strategy on which we will consult widely to bring together all the positive measures that I have outlined. A cornerstone of the strategy is the encouragement of good-quality CHP, as that is the key to maximising environmental and economic benefits. We have consulted on proposals for a CHP quality assurance programme to assess and monitor all types and sizes of CHP. That is crucial for operating the climate change levy for good-quality CHP.
    320
    The proposals provide a practical method for accurately measuring the quality of individual CHP installations, and they gained broad support from the industry and others. On 17 May, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced the key decisions following consultation. The Government's full response will be published shortly.
    All these actions are designed to stimulate CHP growth, which means new CHP users. To help them make the most of the opportunities available, we have launched the CHP club, which is a new initiative designed to help CHP users to exploit the opportunities available. Run under the energy efficiency best practice programme, it is particularly targeted at new and potential CHP users, as well as helping existing users to extend their schemes.
    The club will provide members with a single point of access to all the facilities open to them. It will enable users to access information, exchange experience, ask questions, and share good practice. By providing independent, authoritative advice, and by enabling users and potential users to share their knowledge and practical experience, the club will act as a hub of support for CHP. The CHP club will play an important role in unlocking the UK's CHP potential.
    I hope that I have said enough to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government take the issue seriously. If there are points in his remarks that I have not properly addressed, we can follow them up later.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Two o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Okinawa G7 Summit
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.
10 am
Valerie Davey: I am especially pleased to introduce this debate before the United Nations social summit in Geneva later this week, the G7 Finance Ministers' meeting and the G7 Okinawa summit in Japan next month.
Many hon. Members and thousands of our constituents, while congratulating the Government on the lead that they have taken internationally in reducing debt and poverty in the world's poorest countries, are urging the Government to do even more. The millennium announcement that Britain was cancelling 100 per cent. of the debt owed by the poorest countries made many of us feel good, but we are increasingly aware that those who should have been the main beneficiaries of that decision are still largely unaware of any change. I hope that this debate will clarify the reasons for that and what can now be done.
This time last year, hard work and commitment on all sides—from voluntary groups, churches, Ministers and officials at the Department for International Development and the Treasury, nationally and internationally, and especially from Jubilee 2000—culminated in the Cologne summit. There, the world's seven richest countries—the G7 —promised to write off $100 billion of the $260 billion owed to the west by the most indebted countries. The G7 promised that 25 of the 40 countries identified by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as the most indebted would receive help by the end of the year, provided that the lenders were satisfied that the borrowers had policies to ensure that funds were used to reduce poverty.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated that 11 countries would get through the programme's hurdles by Easter. I use the word "hurdle" advisedly, because it illustrates one of the several blocks that prevent implementation of the G7 promises.
By mid-June, just five countries—Bolivia, Uganda, Mauritania, Mozambique and Tanzania—had received a reduction in debt repayments. Only Uganda is anywhere near having its debt cancelled. The average reduction in the group is 35 per cent., but Tanzania's reduction is as low as 7 per cent., which means that it still needs to spend ․150 million a year servicing its debt and can afford to spend only ․87 million on health. About one third of children in Tanzania are malnourished, and less than half the children of primary school age are actually in school. The Tanzanian Government's budget is distorted by that ․150 million debt repayment.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the World Bank has agreed
2WH
another loan to Tanzania of £3 billion, even though it is struggling to pay off its existing debts. Does she have a view about the responsibility of the World Bank in taking that action at this stage?
Valerie Davey: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I will show my concern about the World Bank later in my speech and I hope that she will contribute again.
A similar situation exists in each of the highly indebted countries. One third of Bolivia's population has no access to safe water. Adult illiteracy in Mauritania is 62 per cent. Mozambique faces the daunting task of reconstruction following the worst flooding in living memory, yet it is still expected to repay ․45 million every year.
Despite all the promises of ․100 billion-worth of debt cancellation, only ․13 billion has been cancelled so far, ․11 billion of which had been agreed to before the Cologne summit. A community worker in Bristol recently shared with me two of the most often heard phrases among young people, mostly black, in his area. They were "Keep it real" and "We're not going to believe the promise". I was reminded of that as I reflected on the debt crisis. The reality for children, especially those in the most indebted countries, has not changed. Why should they believe the promise?
Often, the reality in areas of deprivation is that even more exploitation takes place. A Christian Aid photograph in my office at home shows a simple cross and a Nestle dried milk tin containing a few dead flowers marking the grave of a baby, somewhere in Latin America. Did the mother know that, without pure water, the contents of that tin would cause her child's death? The most poignant aspect of that photograph is the picture, on the side of the tin, of a European mother and child smiling, full of good health.
A Christian Aid report published last December shows that a baby's birthplace determines a millennium lottery. For example, Grace, born in Africa, has a one in 10 chance of dying before her first birthday, but for Sarah, born in the United Kingdom, the chance is one in 166. Grace has only a 54 per cent. chance of being immunised against measles. For Sarah, the figure is 95 per cent. Grace has only a 50 per cent. chance of access to clean water, but Sarah has a 100 per cent. chance. Grace will have only a 60 per cent. chance of going to primary school. Sarah's chance is 100 per cent.
Consistently, charities have responded and individuals have given generously. I congratulate the Government on giving tax relief on all charitable donations, which enhances their value. However, such giving is still not enough. Many years ago—when a first class stamp cost 5½ old pence—Frank Judd, who was a Minister responsible for overseas development and a director of Oxfam, urged everyone at a third world conference to invest in a stamp and urge the Government to raise the level of overseas aid, as it was the best form of investment for the third world. His message was that individual giving was great, but Governments could do more.
The Government are committed to doing a great deal more. I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development on leading the world on debt repayment

3WH
and poverty reduction strategies. That initiative helped to persuade the other members of the G7, and countries outside it, such as Norway and Sweden, to promise 100 per cent. cancellation of bilateral debt. Given that promise, why has so little changed? The process by which the heavily indebted poor countries gain entitlement to bilateral debt relief is the first hurdle. Of course, strategies for poverty reduction and plans for future sustainable development must be in place, but how much of that can be achieved while debt repayment is draining HIPCs?
In response to a debate led by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who I am delighted to see will respond to the debate, said:
The UK argues that a country need not have a full poverty reduction strategy in place when a decision is made. —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 12 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 101WH.]
I trust that others are persuaded by that approach.
Another hurdle is the fact that the HIPC initiative is administered by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, both of which have their own complex agendas. The Government's initiative in suggesting that the fund and the bank set up a HIPC initiative implementation unit to oversee the HIPC timetable was welcome. The acceptance of the proposal was even more welcome. Can my hon. Friend tell us what effect that has had on the timetable? Has it led to an improvement and a shortening of the time that we can expect for the debt to be cancelled? The financial contribution of the United States is another major hurdle. Congress has still failed to honour the commitment of the US Administration. Has there been any further reassurance on that crucial issue?
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the refusal of Congress to support the initiative makes a mockery of the US's claim to lead the free world in modern democratic values, and that we should urge our colleagues in Congress to move forward on this?
Valerie Davey: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Jubilee 2000, which now has a worldwide remit, is urging its members to write to members of Congress. Indeed, the last information pack that I saw had a letter in Japanese to send to Japan. I respect the point that my hon. Friend makes. if Congress is not committed to cancelling debt, the rest of the western world has an uphill struggle to improve the position for HIPCs. It reflects increasingly well on our Government that they have taken such a strong lead and have taken all the other western countries with them.
Even if the HIPCs overcome all the hurdles that I have described, the multilateral debt still remains. For some of them it is as much as 35 per cent. of gross domestic product. It is owed for the most part to the IMF and the World Bank and in some cases to commercial transnational banks. While both the IMF and the World bank discuss debt relief and world poverty and, thanks to the British Government, accept that success should be determined more by the number of people lifted out of poverty than how much debt is
4WH
cancelled, neither is considering cancelling the debt owed to them. That is strange as the same G7 countries are the most influential in those two bodies.
There is a special concern about the IMF. It seems to have policies affecting countries, especially in southern Africa, that result in deep cuts in health, education and employment which are completely contrary to the poverty reduction policies necessary to qualify for the HIPC bilateral debt relief. It is almost incredible that we should find ourselves in this position. It is to the credit of the leading members of Christian Aid, Jubilee 2000 and other non-governmental organisations and voluntary sector groups that they have highlighted that discrepancy.
The IMF and the World Bank seem remote and unaccountable. The poorest and the most indebted countries have the weakest voice there. How high on the agenda is the reform of both those institutions, as that is necessary before further progress can be made to support the poorest countries? It has not been on the agenda and although Jubilee 2000 in Okinawa is concentrating on the work that the G7 countries can do to cancel bilateral debt, the issue of multilateral debt must come higher on their agenda, and on ours.
That leaves the debt owed to the commercial banks. In east Asia and Latin America new debt problems are emerging, as debt owed to private creditors is destroying national development efforts. I have neither the time nor the expertise—although perhaps I should have the time—for another important debate on the need to regulate the repayment of debt to private companies so that a country's basic services, such as health and education, are not undermined.
People must come before profit. That is an obvious statement that has added significance after the tragic deaths in Dover at the weekend. There is a prophetic message; the words of the Old Testament prophets, especially Amos, ring out across nearly three millennia. Amos said that it is wrong to sell the innocent for silver and the needy for a pair of shoes, and it is wrong to grind the heads of the poor into the earth and thrust the humble out of the way. The principles of justice, respect, respect for others and the fair use of resources remain the same; what has changed is the extent of the extremes of wealth and poverty and the global nature of the causes and the remedies.
We expect great things from Okinawa; Jubilee 2000 members and others will be holding summit vigils around the world, starting in Geneva. There will be a vigil in Bristol cathedral as dawn breaks in Okinawa, but before that the letters will flow and, as I said earlier, they will flow internationally. In Parliament, Ministers will be asked three questions. First, why has so little of the ․100 billion debt cancellation promised at Cologne been achieved and why has so little reached the HIPC countries? Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that the ․100 billion debt cancellation was a step on the road to a real solution. Is that still his view? What further action has he in mind? Finally, what further reforms of the International Monetary Fund are possible to strengthen the links between debt relief and poverty reduction? Millions of people around the world want their elected representatives to take action, and we must not fail them.
10.18 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on introducing the debate and express sadness and disappointment that those who joined us in the campaigns run by Jubilee 2000 last year are not present this morning.
It is unusual for me to do so, but I congratulate both the Government and the previous Tory Government on their efforts on debt relief. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made one of the first moves when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am delighted to acknowledge the work of the present Government—particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, who have taken great strides and raised the issue in many international contexts. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Bristol, West is right that we all share a sense of disappointment that what was supposed to happen — forgiveness on account of the jubilee and the millennium, for example—has not materialised and little debt relief has been achieved.
I shall not make a long speech because the arguments are already well rehearsed. The World Bank, however, has just issued a report called, "Can Africa claim the 21st century?" Coming from the World Bank—responsible in the past and, regarding Tanzania, in the future—it is a sick report, which highlights a great deal of irresponsible lending. It is disturbing to pose the question whether Africa can survive in the present century and I wonder how far we have managed to assist its survival. We were promised a reduction by half of the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015, yet the World Bank estimates that there are now 70 million more people living in poverty than there were a few years ago. We are obviously going backwards in the poverty stakes.
Universal primary education in all countries by 2015 is a worthy aim that was heralded by the White Paper on development. Eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005 is another, yet the World Bank found that the average schooling level of African women has increased by only by 1.2 years in the past 40 years. Clearly, education is scarcely moving forward either.
People who have visited sub-Saharan African countries are often struck by the effect of AIDS there. In many African countries, as many as one in four of the population are stricken with AIDS—one in four of a population whose work is desperately needed for the economic viability of those countries. Sadly, many economically active people are dying. In the past, diseases such as gastro-enteritis and malaria devastated African countries—attacking newborn babies, young children and the elderly—but AIDS is unique as a disease in that it strikes at the young, fit, healthy and active members of the population. The health targets in the White Paper are likely to be seriously compromised by the AIDS epidemic.
In 20 of the 48 sub-Saharan African countries there are civil wars, which are fuelled by the arms trade. The Government promised to do more, especially regarding arms brokers, but they have passed no legislation. Civil wars are also fuelled by the avarice for oil, diamonds and
6WH
other raw materials that are used in western countries to make money. They represent yet another factor that will prevent the proper development of African countries.
The most indebted and aid-dependent countries in the world have to pay around 17 per cent. of their gross domestic product in debt repayment—the African average is three times what the World Bank says is a sustainable level. The annual gross rate averages 3 per cent. We can only look aghast at those economic figures, which explain why we are so depressed by the lack of progress.
What is the reason for that lack of progress? We must examine the international community and point the finger—particularly at the USA and Japan. Throughout the campaign, it was made clear that those countries constantly stalled on debt relief. Their actions made it more difficult for other G8 members to do anything about the problem. As the hon. Member for Bristol, West, said, Congress is blocking the money that is needed for the HIPC fund. I suspect that Congress is brave enough to do that because it is not a big issue in America but, as part of the international community, we should be hard on the United States for taking that approach.
The search for the perfect poverty strategy has been much delayed. All campaigners and G8 Governments agreed last year that the structural adjustment programmes were doing more harm than good. Health and education projects in some countries were suffering because of their efforts to bring their economies into line with the programmes that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund insisted on if they were to qualify for debt relief. Last year's approach was positive. We understood that poverty reduction targets were going to be more prominent and that health and education projects were going to be insisted on as part of the structural adjustment.
As the Secretary of State for International Development said, there is no perfect scheme to ensure that money is spent in the right way. We could spend the rest of the 21st century looking for the perfect scheme, but we must get on with that process and allow for the fact that there will be defaulters and mistakes. I understand from her response to the report on debt relief by the Select Committee on International Development that the British Government have established a HIPC implementation group within the IMF and the World Bank. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what progress has been made.
What is the European Union doing about the unspent money in its aid budget? Some countries that were earmarked to receive money from the EU budget for aid projects do not have the capacity to take on those projects. As it is so difficult to raise money for the HIPC trust fund, why cannot the aid money be used for the HIPC debt relief fund? It is pointless to have that money sitting there doing nothing. Can we put pressure on the EU to get its act together?
Last but not least, recommendation 14 in the Government's response to the Select Committee report on debt relief states:
We welcome the commitment by the UK Government to go beyond what is required by the terms of the HIPC Initiative and to write off all aid debt, and up to 100 per cent. of export credit guarantee debt.

7WH
That worthy and much heralded pledge followed a similar announcement by the United States. It was welcomed by everyone. However, the Government's response raises some questions. It states:
The Government strongly supports the strengthening of the HIPC framework at the G8 Cologne Summit and is grateful to the Committee for its endorsement of the UK's policy on bilateral debt relief. The Government has already cancelled all aid debts to HIPC countries.
What other debts are we owed that are not aid debts? They go on to say that they are providing
100 per cent relief on export credit debt, owed to it by individual HIPC countries, from the time they reach Decision Point under the HIPC Initiative,
which means that we have not relieved 100 per cent. of those countries' export credit guarantee debt. We have relieved only Uganda, which is the only country to have reached decision point. We need an answer. I question the much-heralded announcement that Britain had cancelled all bilateral debts including export credit guarantees. If only Uganda has reached decision point, only Uganda has so far received 100 per cent relief.
Ms Julia Drown: On a point of correction, Mauritania and Bolivia have also reached decision point.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She is right. However, an awful lot of countries need debt relief and it was claimed that the Government had given them 100 per cent. bilateral debt relief although they had not. The process is extremely slow.
I would like to question another claim made by the Government. We were told early on that tied aid was finished and that we would not continue with it. However, although they were not established under this Government, tied aid projects are still running. Many projects set up under tied aid involved countries paying inflated and uneconomic prices to British companies for the services that they received. The hon. Member for Bristol, West highlighted the iniquities of the payments of debts to private companies. I should like to be assured that highly indebted poor countries are not paying inflated debts to private companies in this country as a result of past tied aid projects.
It is important to clarify the matter. I want the Government to be squeaky clean. They have every reason to be proud of what they have done on the debt issue, as have the previous Government who started the process, and I am prepared to commend them. However, I do not want there to be loopholes, as there are in so many parts of Government policy, whereby what we hear is not what is happening on the ground. I seek the Minister's reassurance.
10.32 am
Ms Julia Drown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on initiating the debate. It is important that we have an opportunity to press the Government on a vital topic. The debate is timely, with the G7 summit coming up next month.
8WH
In recent weeks, I have been inundated with cards and letters from constituents who are calling for further action on debt cancellation in poor countries. The momentum and profile of the excellent campaign continues to make a big impact on all MPs and politicians in the United Kingdom and in other countries, creating more pressure for radical action. My constituents share the views of many in the UK and across the world. They welcome the progress that has been made and recognise the leading role that the Government have taken on debt relief. However, serious concerns remain about the pace and depth of change.
More delay will cost lives. My constituents do not want us to get bogged down in the mechanisms, processes, rules, diplomacy, frameworks or strategies. They want us to get through those matters and produce real results—the provision of better health care, better education, clean water, food and decent housing to the poorest people in the poorest countries.
The heavily indebted poor countries initiative was supposed to achieve good results and the alleviation of poverty through debt relief. When I think about the process, I picture a golden road. Countries that are sufficiently poor and indebted and are judged by the west to have unsustainable debts are allowed on to that road, which should glide them smoothly and simply to debt relief. However, the process is not like that in practice. Millions of people are still waiting to get to the end of that golden road, but there are obstacles in their way.
I should like to consider the impact of debt and of the HIPC process on three poor countries: Mauritania and Guyana, which are involved in that process, and Nigeria, which is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West gave some background information on Mauritania, which is one of the few countries on the golden road of the HIPC initiative. It has reached the first major obstacle, which is known as the decision point, when western Governments judge whether a country has reformed its economy to a sufficient extent to deserve debt relief. It is only at that stage that debt relief is given. Mauritania has reached that point, but it has not been a smooth road. As my hon. Friend said, its debt has been reduced by less than a third. It is still spending more money on debt relief than on health and education combined, even though its literacy level is low and few of its children go to school.
The United Kingdom deserves congratulation, as we write off the bilateral debts that are owed when the decision point is reached. However, countries such as Japan and America do not write off debts at that stage. Instead, they wait for the next obstacle, or until the very end of the golden road is reached. That is outrageous. The United States and Japan are much wealthier than us. If we can afford to do it, so can they, and if our economies are sufficient, so are theirs. I urge the Ministers to get that message across at every opportunity, whether it arises during the coffee breaks or on the main conference floor. If the UK can take such action, so can the United States and Japan.
Guyana is also in the HIPC process, but it is failing to help its poorest people. Ministerial pressure is needed for results to be achieved. Guyana illustrates the problems of the HIPC process and it was one of the first countries to participate. Indeed, it also came through

9WH
the earlier process, so we expected that by now it would be getting all the help that it needs. However, it was pushed off that road because the IMF said that the Guyanan Government had missed their budgetary spending target. The reasons why that happened are extraordinary, and originate in a public-sector pay dispute in Guyana. Although the Government wanted the public sector to keep working, they knew that they had to keep on track with the IMF and their budget targets in order to obtain debt relief and also to achieve their poverty alleviation objectives. They explained their problem to the IMF and asked what they should do. They pointed out that the independent arbiters that had considered the pay dispute had advised them to pay, but had told them that if they did pay, the IMF would consider that they had overspent their budget. The IMF said, "Go ahead. You should settle this pay dispute. Go along with the independent arbiters and pay your public-sector workers." The Government did that, but then what happened? The IMF turned around and said, "You are off track. You are off the road and you have not achieved your targets." It appeared to take no responsibility for its actions and no proper account of the issues that countries face. Who suffered? It was the poorest people in Guyana.
That is why we are having this debate; we want to tell Ministers that that is not good enough. If Guyana goes to the IMF to explain its problems and follows the IMF's advice, it should receive its debt relief and receive it sooner, in recognition of its acute problems. I have given examples of two countries in which poverty eradication is being stopped or held up by IMF processes and procedures and by engagement in ridiculous debate rather than in getting on and doing what needs to be done.
The third country to which I shall refer is Nigeria, which is not even included in the HIPC process. It was dropped in 1998 for technical reasons, but they were spurious, because the country far exceeds the HIPC eligibility thresholds. Nigeria is the largest country in west Africa and it is still recovering from decades of misrule and a corrupt military dictatorship that left behind enormous unpayable foreign debt. All but a tiny minority of Nigerians live in poverty. This is an especially important time to help Nigeria because the country is trying to establish itself on a course of economic and social reform.
In Nigeria, life expectancy is 53 years and falling as a result of AIDS. Some 36 per cent. of children under five are underweight, and 51 per cent. of the population do not have access to safe water. The problem is massive. Jubilee 2000 has calculated that even if Nigeria's debt were written off entirely, it would still need additional aid of more than ․1 billion a year in order to reach the internationally agreed poverty reduction targets for 2015. Conversations about debt are only the first stage of the process; we must consider how those poverty reduction targets can be achieved.
We must remember that most of the debt results from money lent to corrupt military dictators, and people in the west did not press sufficiently hard to get that money back. Nigeria is now trying to introduce economic and social reform, and is bearing the pressure in trying to alleviate poverty. Our Government deserve congratulations because they have been at the forefront of helping to support Nigeria, but we must ask them to
10WH
do more. We must take responsibility for the bad loans that have been advanced in the past and we must argue for Nigeria and other countries to be included in the HIPC initiative. If we press for that, I hope that other countries will become involved, including Germany, Japan and the World Bank, who are the major creditors.
The situations in those three countries illustrate some of the problems that need to be tackled and on which the Government must take action at the Okinawa summit. I welcome the progress that has been made, but my constituents have made it clear to me that more must be done urgently because lives depend on it. Therefore, I ask Ministers, in July, to deliver the ․100 billion that was offered at Cologne and to consider the inclusion of many more countries within the HIPC initiative, or, preferably, within a replacement system, because many impoverished and indebted countries are not covered by the HIPC initiative. We need determination to get rid of the obstacles along what should be a golden road to debt reduction and poverty alleviation. Instead it is more like an obstacle course that is being tackled in the dark, and in which the obstacles move every time that one believes that they have been surmounted. The poorest people suffer as a result.
We need to do some straight talking, like the straight talking for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is well known, and we need the determination to tackle all those problems and save the lives that depend on us doing that. I ask the Government to consider a new process of dealing with debt, which was called for by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. We need a system that is transparent and fair and brings real benefits to the poorest people in the world. Will the Minister say whether the Government support that initiative? We have come a long way, but we need to do more, and it would be tragic to falter at this stage. We must do all we can to ensure that the phrase "debt cancellation", which is firmly imprinted on the consciousness of so many people in developed countries, has real meaning for people in less developed countries; in Mauritania, Guyana, Nigeria and other impoverished countries. Those people must be able to feel for themselves the enormous benefits that debt relief can bring, so that the elimination of poverty can be addressed in their countries.
10.44 am
Mr. John McFall: I am delighted to be able to participate in the morning's debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on raising it.
The Jubilee 2000 campaign has taken off because of the support of many ordinary people. I received more than 1,500 letters asking me to press my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and others not only to take action to write off debt, but to adopt a strategy to help the world's poorest. Last Saturday, I had the privilege and the pleasure of starting a five-mile bike ride from St. Michael's church in my constituency, organised by Paul McGinlay. Fifty young people aged between four and 14 were involved. Before the event we showed the Jubilee 2000 video and explained simply that education and health were very important to young people in other countries. The important point was made that in an age of great advances in medical technology more than

11WH
12 million children die every year from easily preventable diseases. That is a scandal and collectively we must do something about it. Great advances have also been made in computer technology, but more than 800 million adults cannot read or write. Those challenges are not just in far-off lands. The economic and environmental effects of globalisation mean that our future is tied up with that of the world. We have a moral and a pragmatic obligation to convey that message.
Initiatives in the heavily indebted poorer countries have been mentioned and I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development on what has been undertaken. I remember a speech by the Chancellor to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland two years ago, the kernel of which was that we needed to do something on the international stage to alleviate poverty. He was congratulated and I join in that response. However, we now have the problem of encouraging other countries to ensure that debt is written off. It is symbolic that next month's summit will be in Okinawa. Japan has a long way to go in the process of writing off bilateral debts.
For too long, we have tied international debt and loans to trade. We must get away from that. As the Government have said, we need a poverty reduction strategy and it is important that it should be separated from trade. The five heavily indebted poorer countries mentioned have not yet jumped over that barrier. The progress that has been made on a global scale is pretty much a minimum. We must push on that issue.
Great initiatives are being pursued. A couple of years ago in Zimbabwe I came across something called the Blair toilet—there is nothing domestic about it—promoted by Oxfam, to bring sanitary conditions to villages and thus improve health. I am proud to say that the Oxfam shop in Helensburgh in my constituency, which has been going for 25 years, has contributed directly to that. Christine Thorburn, the manager, and another 40 volunteers keep that shop open for six days a week, reminding people about the bigger outside world.
I congratulate the Government on what has been done, but we cannot rest there. We must have an efficient poverty strategy. We owe it to those young people who now die so needlessly. Morally, we owe it also to ourselves. We should take a lead from those ordinary people who have encouraged us and our constituents so that, by 2015, our target of halving the number of people living in extreme poverty will have been achieved. That is a noble aspiration, and people of every party and none should sign up to it. I am proud that we are embarking on that road, and I wish everyone well, particularly the Government in Okinawa.
10.51 am
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) for winning this debate and for the way in which she spoke. She rightly asked why so little has been done to provide for international debt relief. Many hon. Members have touched on that theme, which I shall develop in a moment.
12WH
We shall think of the hon. Member for Bristol, West on the day of the Okinawa summit, when she undertakes her vigil in Bristol cathedral. I am not sure whether it will be dawn in Bristol or dawn in Okinawa when she starts, but as someone who has attended many services in Bristol cathedral—I was brought up in the city—I have a vision of what it will be like.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) spoke incisively. She is no stranger to the subject, and takes a keen interest in it. I shall turn to what she said later in my speech. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said that many people sought to travel down what she described as a golden road, but tellingly said that it was not like that in practice, which is the truth of the matter.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) made me feel rather unfit; he went on a sponsored run at the weekend, but I confess that I was sitting in a boat. I congratulate him on his efforts. He rightly said that we cannot rest, and that an all-party approach is needed.
With population growth in the third world easily outstripping economic development, it is no surprise that the crisis continues. If a country's population is growing faster than its economy, it is effectively going backwards, particularly in respect of economic growth per capita. That is why the Conservative party has taken a close interest in the subject for many years. It should come as no surprise that we welcome any steps taken to reduce debt for those countries for which it is an intolerable burden.
The Conservative party has a proud track record on debt relief. The previous Conservative Government wrote off £1.2 billion of debt—the single largest contribution to solving the debt problem. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Richmond Park acknowledge the steps that were taken by the previous Government, who initiated the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was the principle architect of its forerunner, the Trinidad terms, which reduced by two thirds the debt owed by the poorest and most indebted countries. Again, it was my right hon. Friend who pressed for full implementation at the Naples summit of the Paris Club of creditor nations. As Prime Minister, at the 1994 G7 summit in Tokyo, my right hon. Friend gave much momentum to the Cairo conference on population and development—a not unrelated subject.
In opposition, the Conservative party continues to support debt relief as an effective tool in development policy, and has proposed new ways to take the issue forward. Hon. Members have spoken about the excellent work carried out by Jubilee 2000 to which we pay tribute. We support its campaign to cut debt in those countries for which it is an intolerable burden.
We welcome the Government's initiatives in the reduction of bilateral debt. We said in September 1999 that the Government should cancel 100 per cent. of bilateral debt and we welcomed and supported the subsequent announcement of the cancellation of bilateral debts for the world's poorest countries, subject to a rigorous audit, with the money saved to be spent on health and education. Those are important caveats.
We support the Government when they act with organisations such as the World Bank and the IMF to promote well-thought-out multilateral debt reduction

13WH
programmes that offer the prospect of sustainable economic growth in the long term. We support the main features of the Cologne debt initiative.
It is essential that debt relief is delivered quickly, to benefit the poorest members of society. However, if the Government are taking credit for the success of the campaign, they must take responsibility for the unsatisfactory progress in the reduction of multilateral debt. As I said earlier, the HIPC initiative was originally agreed by the previous Government in September 1996. According to the World Bank, the 40 most heavily indebted poor countries have external debts totalling some £194 billion. Last year, at the G7 summit in Cologne, the total debt relief was increased from £52 billion to £100 billion and the Prime Minister told the House that:
it is an issue whose time had come—[Official Report, 21 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 763.]
Sadly, the reality is lagging behind the rhetoric. A year later, only five countries have received debt relief and only about 15 will have qualified by the end of 2000, instead of the hoped-for 24 or 25. Only two extra countries, Bolivia and Mozambique, will reach completion point in 2000. As the hon. Members for Bristol, West and for Richmond Park said, in the five countries that are beginning to receive debt relief the debt service payments have fallen by an average of only 40 per cent. Reference was made to Uganda; the United Nations website yesterday said that relief to Uganda has currently been suspended because of the military activities there.
Progress is slow and bureaucracy is one of the culprits. The hon. Member for South Swindon mentioned Guyana, which was expected to be one of the first beneficiaries. As the h Lady said, the Guyanan Government sought IMF advice last year to reach agreement in a pay dispute with public sector workers. They took the IMF's advice to settle on the basis of independent arbitration, which resulted in the Government exceeding their budgetary targets. The IMF is now using that overspending as a reason to delay debt relief. I agree with the hon. Member for South Swindon that that is not an acceptable way for the IMF to behave. I also agree with her that countries such as Nigeria and Haiti, which are among the poorest in the world, are not even being considered.
There are many other reasons why the initiative is faltering; much has been made of the United States Congress proving obstructive. The World Bank argues that its credit rating could be damaged; the Inter-American Development bank has so far refused to provide its own funding and the European Union is refusing to release funds until the United States provides its "fair share" of debt relief. The introduction of poverty-reduction strategy papers is being used as an excuse to delay relief still further. Japan is pressuring some countries not to apply for relief.
In short, we are witnessing political wrangling, conflicting agendas, lack of consensus, rather than the delivery of the modest debt relief on offer to those most in need. We recognise that the Government are trying to cut through that and have set up a joint World Bank/ IMF committee to oversee the implementation process. I am sure that the Economic Secretary will give us an update on what is happening in that committee.
14WH
There is an important point here, however, that has bedevilled the Government since the day they got elected: the delivery lags behind the spin that has been put on the initiative, not just by President Clinton or the Prime Minister, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said in September last year that:
if we are successful it will be a matter not of years or months but weeks before the first country will benefit from debt relief.
The firm belief was that others would follow thereafter. It comes as no surprise that the UN Secretary-General said in March this year that:
the deeper, faster and broader relief promised last year has yet to materialise.
My strong advice to the Government is not to raise expectations to a level where they cannot deliver and, indeed, it is not within their gift to deliver. They face a big challenge. We are behind them in their efforts, but they should get on with it quietly and not let their spin doctors anywhere near the subject. Otherwise, perish the thought, they might be accused of being all mouth and no delivery. We need a more disciplined approach to international borrowing and lending. We have a new century and a new era in global finance. Let us make sure that it succeeds.
11.1 am
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing this Adjournment debate on an important subject. I welcome the recognition that hon. Members have given to the Government's role and the progress that has been made. We always want progress to be faster, but we are achieving a great deal. I shall argue that case and try to answer the key points that have been made this morning.
This is clearly an important issue and one to which the Government remain deeply committed. Our track record demonstrates our commitment. We called for and got a review of the original heavily indebted poor countries initiative. We pressed our G7 and international colleagues to adopt challenging targets on debt reduction and the numbers of countries receiving debt, relief and we have made a commitment to give 100 per cent. debt relief to every country that qualifies under the HIPC initiative.
I obviously recognise the contribution of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in starting the process off, but when the Government came into office in 1997, not one country was receiving debt relief under the HIPC initiative that had been agreed in 1996. I therefore take exception to the tone and one or two of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). The previous Government had not made progress and the vicious cycle of debt, poverty and economic decline was trapping more and more people.
The scale of human tragedy that is involved is difficult to accept. More than 130,000 children die in Africa each week. That is a terrible statistic, and it moved a number of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) to contribute to the debate. It has also moved huge numbers of the population of the UK to send us cards and to put pressure on both us and, I am

15WH
glad to hear, other Governments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West told us about letters being sent in Japanese.
Under the historic agreement secured in Cologne, the HIPC initiative was enhanced to provide more debt relief to more countries. Five countries are already receiving enhanced debt relief and another 15 are expected to do so before the end of the year. Today, the board of the World Bank will discuss the issue and we hope that a decision will be reached soon thereafter. We are still on course to meet our G7 target of helping three quarters of eligible countries through to decision point by the end of the year.
So far the HIPC initiative has given out ․14 billion in debt relief—representing an average stock-of-debt reduction of about 45 per cent. for each of the countries—on top of debt relief mechanisms such as the Paris Club reschedulings, which reduced debt stock by a further 67 per cent. At its decision point, Tanzania received commitments from its creditors to provide debt service relief of more than ․3 billion, which will translate into an overall halving of its debt service obligations over the next three years.
Several points about Tanzania were raised in the debate, so I shall try to answer them in greater detail. The World Bank loan agreed with Tanzania is on highly concessional terms. It is preferable for the country to receive such concessional lending rather than borrow from the private sector at competitive rates. We do not want to starve countries of new lending for productive projects. We cannot prevent a country from borrowing: it needs to take on new debt to support projects and spending that contribute to poverty reduction. Such debt is not inherently bad if the money is being put to productive use, so we must ensure that all new lending is productive lending.
Tanzania's poverty reduction strategy paper, which provides the basis for all new lending and support from donors such as the UK, is constructed around actions that will benefit the whole population. The Government are committed to setting the poverty reduction targets in each of the priority sectors—agriculture, education, health, rural roads and water. The interim poverty reduction paper highlighted the need to increase school enrolment rates, to improve the quality of primary education and to raise the coverage of immunisation against diphtheria, polio and tetanus. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development was recently in Tanzania and was impressed by the progress that the country was making on all those fronts.
Dr. Tonge: I should like to press the Minister a little further. To what extent can the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund monitor how the funds are spent? A great deal of debt was incurred during the 1980s and much money went into the pockets of dictators: it never benefited the people of those countries. Has anything changed? Are the institutions monitoring more carefully what happens or can we expect exactly the same story 10 years hence?
Miss Johnson: We constantly try to improve performance in those regards. We have made progress,
16WH
but more remains to be done. I can tell the hon. Lady that the Government are not complacent about these problems. I shall return to her points about the World Bank in a few moments.
Earlier this year, the UK Government were concerned about slippages in the timetable of countries coming forward. We have continually pressed for the revised HIPC initiative to be implemented quickly, so those in need feel the effects of debt relief quickly. That is why my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development wrote to the acting managing director of the IMF and the chairman of the World Bank, urging them to set up a HIPC implementation group to oversee progress. We were delighted when those organisations announced at their spring meeting that they were setting up a joint implementation committee on HIPC. That group is charged with overseeing the implementation of the initiative and has already had its first meeting, the outcome of which was a timetable which should result in at least 20 countries reaching the decision point by the end of the year. The group will manage the implementation of the timetable and we hope that as a result there will be greater progress in those countries.
Valerie Davey: Many of us are sceptical about committees, which are sometimes set up and then kicked into touch. Can my hon. Friend tell us more about the nature of this important committee? Why are expectations for the future so rosy? The two important bodies needed to be brought together, but given our anxiety about them individually, what is to be gained from the committee unless there is a new impetus, or, indeed, new members of the committee?
Miss Johnson: The first meeting was encouraging because it produced the timetable. I agree that there is a danger that meetings are not as productive as they might be, but the committee brings together the two institutions, sets timetables and reports directly to the boards. Progress is made only by battling to move forward; we are pushing as hard as we can to make progress, and receiving support from others in that respect.
We hope that 20 countries will reach decision point by the end of the year. Of the 41 HIPC countries, 16—the number varies—are at present suffering from the disruption or the aftermath of conflict. Therefore, most have not begun to draw up poverty-reduction strategies to show how debt relief can release resources to reduce poverty. Five further countries are likely to be deemed to have sustainable levels of debt, which means that they will not require further debt relief under HIPC once they have received such relief under the Naples terms from the Paris Club. We expect the remaining 20 countries to reach the decision point under the HIPC initiative and to start receiving debt relief this year. The United Kingdom is at the forefront of international efforts to assist poor countries and we encourage others to match our efforts.
Hon. Members asked about conditionality, poverty reduction strategy papers and other matters, and I shall answer one or two questions now. I confirm what I said in a previous Adjournment debate: it is not necessary to have a full poverty reduction strategy paper in place at decision point. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for

17WH
Bristol, West that that continues to be our view. An interim paper is needed, but we are prepared to be flexible about it and we have encouraged others to be flexible, too. We want good poverty reduction strategy papers in place by completion point, and we want countries to take as long as they need to achieve a good strategy that has broad support. However, we argued for being reasonable in considering how progress can be made so that a country is not held up.
Uganda's debt relief was mentioned; it will be used to reduce pupil-teacher ratios from 100 to one to 50 to one—that is good progress, although we hope that the ratio will be reduced even further—and to build new schools to allow the Ugandan Government to meet their goal of universal primary education. Good progress will be made in Uganda as a result of that.
Dr. Tonge: The Minister may not be able to answer my question, so I shall ask it in the hope of receiving a written reply. When we were in Uganda, we found that, as a result of qualifying for debt relief, the structural adjustment programme had imposed the need to charge a small fee for primary education. In our view, that was a step backwards. Can Uganda now drop those fees and make education free?
Miss Johnson: I understand that such action is not possible at the moment. The hon. Lady invited me to write to her, and I am happy to do so and to copy my letter to other hon. Members present. In any case, the World Bank is leading in Uganda on social spending, on which it has expertise. As I said, progress is being made.
Others have been persuaded by our approach to the interim poverty reduction strategy papers, and that has been adopted in the HIPC modalities, so we have made an impact on the processes and on some countries.
Ms Drown: The language of the debate is often about assisting developing countries. How much does the debate focus on not only the moral argument, but the economic argument? We have suggested that some countries may be lagging behind Britain. Would that situation change if the economic argument were pushed forward? If the economies of all the countries that had debt lifted from their shoulders really grew, new markets would open up for the US, Japan and the European Community. Would such arguments help to bring more countries on board?
Miss Johnson: The economic issues must always be considered, but some of them are the primary responsibility of other Departments, so my hon. Friend will understand if I do not comment in detail on the issues that she raised.
Mr. McFall: I will follow the question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park about the structural adjustment programmes. My experience of some of the African countries in the 1980s was that programmes focused on only one part of the economy and brought the rest of the economy down. A refined structural adjustment programme is needed. I mentioned earlier that I had visited Zimbabwe, where the structural adjustment programme had a negative effect many years
18WH
ago. Will the Minister examine that aspect of those programmes and perhaps write to hon. Members? Our constituents are keen to advance that important issue.
Miss Johnson: I am happy to add some remarks about that issue to the letter that I promised earlier, if it will help hon. Members contributing to this useful debate.
Our policy has been of bilateral 100 per cent. debt forgiveness, which has underlined our commitment to debt relief. Since we made that announcement, we have encouraged other creditor nations to adopt the same view. Our initiative is generating results. All the G7 countries have now announced 100 per cent. debt relief policies. Some hon. Members asked about the 100 per cent. level and the relationship between debt and aid debt. Perhaps it will help to remind hon. Members that we are committed to 100 per cent. relief for all countries qualifying under the HIPC initiative. That includes 100 per cent. relief on debts owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
Dr. Tonge: The Minister is being generous in giving way. Does that mean that countries receive 100 per cent. relief when they reach decision point? There are many difficulties in reaching decision point, because of the structural adjustment programmes and other requirements. Is not the problem the fact that the countries will not get 100 per cent. relief because of delays in reaching decision point?
Miss Johnson: We are trying to make progress on those issues. The countries will receive 100 per cent. debt relief when they reach decision point, but we want to be sure that the cancellation of debt will go towards the reduction of poverty. All five countries that have reached decision point are benefiting from it.
Let me give the overall figures. Some ․100 billion was pledged in the Cologne agreements. That was broken down into ․50 billion through the initiative HIPC on multilateral relief, ․30 billion on overseas development assistance relief and ․20 billion on Paris Club bilateral relief. Of the ․50 billion multilateral relief, ․12 billion has been delivered. I am afraid that I do not have information on the other sums.
Progress is being made. The focus is now on next month's G7 Okinawa summit. The Government will continue to keep up the momentum in the run up to the summit and beyond. The G7, international financial institutions and debtor countries together must ensure not only that debt relief is delivered, but that the released resources are used to eradicate poverty in HIPC countries. The UK is reassured that the United States Administration remains committed to securing funds for HIPC. Larry Summers, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, recently made a strong speech urging Congress to approve the necessary funding. The lobbying efforts of non-governmental organisations such as Jubilee 2000 are important in getting the message across to Congress. I welcome their activities in that regard. Indeed, the Chancellor will meet one of the Senators with responsibility for that matter next month to discuss the issue of HIPC, so additional work is taking place.
We continue to push Japan to be more generous and to deliver its relief from decision point. At the moment, it delivers relief from completion point and looks only at

19WH
pre-cut off date debt. There are issues to address, but pressure is being exerted and discussions are taking place.
As for Nigeria, the Government have been at the forefront of offering it support so that it helps itself. It has a troubled recent history. We have expressed our determination to harness its resources for economic reform and poverty eradication. We have offered help in all areas, including debt management, privatisation and asset recovery. Contact between the UK and Nigeria has taken place at every conceivable level of government. We have worked hard to persuade other countries to take a similarly supportive attitude towards Nigeria. Larry Summers made a positive statement last week on debt cancellation for Nigeria, which shows that our approach is paying off.
The most effective way to help Nigeria is to work collaboratively within the multilateral framework. We believe in a two-stage approach: first, to implement a generous rescheduling of debt during the IMF programme which is under negotiation, and, secondly, to ensure that Nigeria's debt receives a new treatment in 12 months' time. That will allow Nigeria to build up a track record of reform and re-establish relations with the international community. In light of its recent history, that is an important part of the economic setting, and one on which we have been working positively.
Questions were raised about the reform of the IMF and the World Bank. The G7 Finance Ministers will discuss the topic again at their meeting next month. The new poverty reduction and growth facility signals a new chapter in joint working between the bank and the fund. We want the IMF to remain involved in developing countries and working with the bank. Academic debate acknowledges that stable economic growth is a necessary precondition for development. The countries need a stable macro-economic framework as well as the others measures that we have discussed. Africa is estimated to need to achieve growth rates of 6 to 7 per cent. if it is to reach international development targets. Between 1990 and 1997, growth rates in Africa averaged no more than about 1 per cent. Considerable progress must be made in terms of the economic setting.
20WH
A question was raised about the position of Guyana. Briefly, the objective remains to work for an enhanced HIPC decision point in September. We hope to be able to convert the interim poverty reduction strategy paper into a full paper. Work continues on several fronts and progress continues to be made.
A question was raised about EU money. As hon. Members know, the EU agreed more than 1 billion euro to go to HIPC from the European development fund underspends of last year. Of that sum, 680 million euro will go to the HIPC trust fund. The first tranche of the money will be delivered at the beginning of next month and will be vital for giving debt relief to the first countries coming through the process. The Government agree that underspends of European development fund resources can be used well by being put towards HIPC. That has been the thrust of much of our argument.
I will continue to assure hon. Members that progress on all fronts is important. It is obviously important that the subject is on the agenda at the Okinawa summit. I assure hon. Members that debt relief will be discussed in the context both of progress on the HIPC initiative and of the wider development agenda. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have informed the Japanese presidency of the G8 that we would like to use the opportunity of the summit and of the meetings of G7 Finance Ministers running up to the summit to review and to encourage progress on debt relief initiatives.
We must remember that debt relief is only the first link in the chain that can help countries to establish a virtuous circle of debt relief, poverty reduction and economic development. We have touched on all those subjects this morning. There is still much to do. We want to see developing countries playing their full role in the world economy and to see aid targeted and used to its maximum effect. We want developing countries to play their part in the world trade system.
We have an ambitious agenda but we must achieve it. The Government will continue to press our international colleagues for action on the issue. As several hon. Members have said, we have reasons to be proud, but we are by no means complacent about the challenges that face us. I assure all those who have contributed to the valuable debate that progress is being made. I hope that they will understand that we are doing as much as we can to see that even greater progress is achieved in future.

Road Safety (Derbyshire)
11.30 am
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate road safety in Derbyshire, a matter which causes me serious concern. My constituency covers 350 square miles of Derbyshire and has in it some of the most attractive countryside in the United Kingdom. The number of tourists attracted to the county and especially to the peak district is an associated problem. It is no exaggeration to say that some 50 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population live within an hour's drive of Derbyshire.
Over the years, successive Governments have concentrated on giving road safety top priority. I know that the present Government do, as did the previous Government. For some years, I was a junior Minister at the Department of Transport, and we launched a campaign—I am glad to see that it is still running—with the slogan, "Kill your speed, not a child." Although speed is not necessarily a factor in every accident, it is often a significant factor.
The previous Government presided over the safest roads in the European Union. Between 1979 and 1997, dramatic improvements took place in road safety. The number of deaths and serious casualties fell by 43 per cent.; drink-related road deaths decreased by about 68 per cent.; and the number of fatal accidents involving motor cyclists was 62 per cent. lower. I remember being fascinated and puzzled by the fact that the number of road deaths was fewer in 1995 than in any year since records began in 1926, despite there being 14 times as many vehicles on the roads. A number of measures were taken to try to improve road safety, one of which was to lift its profile. In an effort to make the roads safe, we wanted people to think about how they drive.
I am disturbed by the dramatic increase in the number of fatalities on Derbyshire roads this year. I am grateful for the help that Chief Superintendent Bateman of the Derbyshire constabulary has given me during the past few weeks in preparing for today's debate. He confirmed that in the first six months of last year, until 19 June 1999, there were 20 deaths on Derbyshire roads. I was disturbed to hear that in the same six months this year, there have been some 40 deaths. I was aware that the number of deaths had increased greatly, and we must carefully consider the reasons for that increase.
The last year for which the county's casualty report is available is 1998. One of the problems is that casualty reports are, by their very nature, complex and detailed documents. They are often not published until a long time after the year's end. The 1999 report is not likely to be available for another eight to 10 weeks. In 1998, 66 people were killed on Derbyshire roads and 716 people were seriously injured. The estimated cost of those accidents was more than £250 million. That is a huge sum of money for the community. That year showed a slight improvement over 1997, casualties being about 2 per cent. lower.
I am concerned by the dramatic rise in the figures this year. It is disturbing to see such regularity in the numbers. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that what we see in Derbyshire is not happening in the rest of the country and that, for whatever reason, it is
22WH
happening only in the one county. If those sorts of increases were happening everywhere, the Government would be heading in the wrong direction to meet the targets that they have set themselves.
The other issue that I want to raise this morning is the devastation that such fatalities have on the families. During my time as Minister, I met the families of those killed in the Pan Am 103 bombing and in the Marchioness disaster. Those were the most difficult meetings that I ever had. The Minister should be aware that the same devastation is suffered by the families of those killed in road accidents, but the families do not always receive the same publicity and help.
Kevin Delaney, a spokesman for the RAC Foundation, said:
The trouble is that we have a rail crash and 20 or 30 people are killed, whereas there may be as many as 10 road deaths a day but they don't happen in the same place at the same time and they happen for a variety of reasons, which, more often than not, are related to human error.
In 1999, David Skinner, a road traffic management officer for Derbyshire police, said:
If the same number of people who die in these accidents were murder or manslaughter victims in Derbyshire then there would be a public outcry. But, because they are road accidents it seems to be accepted.
On occasions when I have had to visit the families or relatives of people who are involved in fatal accidents, as I am sure other hon. Members have, I am often asked why the accident occurred, what happened and what measures can be taken to improve overall road safety. The Government have set themselves some tough targets on road safety and on accident reduction figures. I welcome that, but I have to tell them that they have not put their money where their targets are. They said at the time of the accident reduction announcements that an extra £100 million would be invested, but they did not say that that was new money. In fact, they were granting to authorities their approval to borrow. One can sometimes speak about the figures in too much detail, but they clearly show overall a decline in the amount of money spent by the Government on road maintenance, which is an important part of the old question of how road safety should be dealt with.
The last three years under the previous Government saw an average annual investment of more than £2 billion. That does not compare well with the investment made by the current Government, who have spent an average of £1.5 billion a year during their first three years in office, which is a substantial reduction in road spending. One of the ways in which the previous Government made progress was by building major new bypasses. We built 160 such roads, as well as many smaller ones. Bypasses have made a major contribution to the reduction of fatal road accidents in this country. More than £26 billion—at 1995–96 prices—was invested in motorways and trunk roads. Our investment achieved the completion of more than 400 major road improvement schemes and the building and upgrading of about 1,300 miles of trunk road, which is 13 per cent. of the motorway trunk road network.
We understand from press reports that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is to change its overall view on the building of new roads. Such roads are often bypasses, which can make our towns and villages safer places and better

23WH
environments for the people who live and work in them. I hope that the Minister will give me some reassurance on that point.
One of my most serious concerns about west Derbyshire is deaths involving motorcyclists. Last year, 16 motorcyclists died there, and, by 1 June this year, a further eight had lost their lives. Motorcyclists are extremely vulnerable, and I do not want to give the impression that they are always at fault in accidents. In any collision that involves a car and motorcyclist, it is usually the latter who sustains the worst injuries, irrespective of who is blameworthy. Matlock Bath has a great attraction for motorcyclists, and on some Sundays, 300 to 400 of them might visit the location. Anybody who goes there on a Sunday will see that that is not an overestimate. Motorcyclists tend to congregate on Sundays, but they also congregate at other times of the week.
I want to mention a few roads in particular. I was immensely pleased when the A50 was finally upgraded. Perhaps naively, I used to call it the Doveridge bypass because people in Doveridge wanted that road to be upgraded. However, it was a mistake to call it the Doveridge bypass because it is basically a link road between the Ml and the M6. It is a major road, all of which is a dual carriageway, and it has made a tremendous difference to the road structure of the east and west midlands. Certainly, I know of many colleagues who no longer drive up the M6, but take the M1 and cut across on the A50 to pick up the M6 further up the network.
Much of the road goes through open countryside and has a whisper concrete surface. However, concrete has been used on a small section of the road, which goes through Doveridge, and the noise increase in that area is amazing. As soon as one hits the concrete surface, the noise level rises. It seems unbelievable to me that Connect, who built the road, was allowed to lay a noisy road surface on the most populated stretch of the A50. I want the Minister to send a strong message to Connect that the current road surface is unacceptable for environmental reasons and because of the noise, which is now constantly heard in Doveridge, as well as in places like Marston Montgomery and Somersal Herbert, which never used to be affected by any noise from the A50. Connect should be told to resurface that section of road. Construction companies have been instructed to resurface other stretches of road on which concrete has been laid.
As a result of the A50 being built, several people now use the A515 from Sudbury to Ashbourne. However, on certain sections of the A515, it is virtually impossible for two lorries to pass, and the number of accidents on that road has increased. An investigation needs to be carried out because the A50 upgrade has led to a substantial increase of traffic on the A515.
I want to revert to the A50 and to mention the Sudbury-Aston roundabout. A few people live on one side of that link road between the M1 and M6. However, during construction, no provision was made for people to cross to the other side of the road to catch buses. That is a problem because pedestrians must dodge traffic on an especially busy dual carriageway. I have asked
24WH
Connect to make the necessary changes, but such matters seem to take an inordinate amount of time and reports have only just been prepared.
I also want to make a plea for the completion of the Ashbourne bypass. The Ashbourne bypass, on the A52, which is a trunk road, was completed some years ago. Unfortunately, at that stage, the county council did not include the completion of the Ashbourne bypass in the plans that it submitted to Government. Therefore no money was made available. If the scheme had been included, it would, I was reliably informed, probably have fallen within the Government's plans to improve the bypass network. Now, given the Government's new approach to bypasses, I hope that the A515 Ashbourne bypass can be included. It will make a tremendous difference to the town.
Several measures have been taken to improve the safety of the A6 and I welcome them overall. One stretch has been changed from dual carriageway to single carriageway on both sides of the road. That was the only stretch between Matlock and Bakewell where it was possible to overtake safely and the change was a mistake. I hope that the agencies that now manage the A6 can examine the issue. One of the problems arising in connection with the measures taken to improve road safety on the A6 is traffic leaving it to use minor roads. The need that that creates for policing of those roads as well as the A6, with its high risk of accidents, has resource implications for the Derbyshire constabulary.
Pressure has been put on the county council to consider road safety and calming measures on the A623, which goes through Calver. I hope for a sympathetic reaction from the county council, and perhaps the Minister will encourage that. A great deal of traffic uses the road on its way through the peak district.
I have raised road safety because I am very concerned about the number of fatalities in Derbyshire in the first part of the year. I hope that that rate will not continue, because those fatalities cause devastation and ruin to families.
11.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on securing this important debate and I thank him for his help in advising my office of the key issues that he intended to raise.
I was saddened to hear of the recent fatal accidents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is a real tragedy that three lives were lost last month in a single accident in Matlock and that two of those killed were only 18 years of age. My sympathy goes to the families and friends of those involved, whose lives will have been devastated.
Each year more than 3,400 people die on British roads and more than 40,000 are seriously injured. In Derbyshire alone on average 85 people are injured on roads each week—11 of them seriously—and one is killed. That is an enormous toll of human suffering that we can and must reduce. That is why we have developed a new 10-year road safety strategy, entitled "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone", which was launched by the Prime Minister on 1 March. The strategy includes tough new casualty reduction targets.

25WH
In the first four months of the year there were 22 fatal accidents in Derbyshire compared with 10 for the same period in 1999. The hon. Gentleman's latest information shows that the accident rate continues at twice that of last year. That is an extremely alarming increase. There is no simple explanation for it, but the authorities in the area are responding vigorously to that most serious challenge. Derbyshire, as the hon. Gentleman said, is an extremely attractive county to visitors—particularly the Peak park and rural areas. There is clear evidence of increasing car-borne visitor traffic. The area around Matlock in particular is enjoyed by hundreds of motorcyclists each year, but that adds to the county's safety and environmental problems.
The authorities responsible for the roads in Derbyshire—the county council, which looks after the local roads, the Highways Agency, in respect of the trunk roads, and the police—place enormous importance on road safety and road casualty reduction. This year, the county council is spending approximately £1.6 million on schemes to improve safety. We are giving local authorities more freedom than ever to develop their transport priorities through the new local transport plan process. That enables them, for the first time, to plan over a five-year period, working with local people, businesses and other agencies to ensure that their policies meet local needs. Road safety is, of course, very high among them.
Derbyshire county council has been proactive in improving safety. Road safety implications are considered at every stage of the council's transport planning. Its proposals are set out in the local transport plan and aim to reduce the number and scale of accidents by tackling areas with accident problems and by reducing vehicle speeds, which are a major contributory factor in many accidents and affect the severity of injuries.
There will be more resources. In addition to the £5.8 million transport settlement for Derbyshire for 2000–01, which represented a 25 per cent. increase on the previous year, we were able to allocate an extra £302,000. That money has been targeted at schemes to improve child safety and safe routes to school, as part of the transport fund announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget. Over the past two years, resources for Derbyshire have increased by some 90 per cent.
However, we are going even further. The total amount of money available to local authorities will rise again from about £755 million in 2000–01 to well over £1 billion in 2001–02. That money will be allocated to local authorities on the basis of the priorities set out in their local transport plans. The new funding takes the form of credit approvals, because that is the method of funding that local authorities prefer. I emphasise that that is real money. It represents real increases in funding by central Government for local transport and road safety improvements.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire raised detailed concerns. I can assure him that the Highways Agency also attaches the highest priority to road safety. For instance, the A6 and A52 trunk roads in Derbyshire have been subject to accident reduction trials. Those projects are aimed at reducing the number of accidents that occur on the A6 between Derby and Stockport, and on the A52 and A523 between Derby and Leek.
26WH
Blanket 50 mph speed limits have been introduced along those roads, with sections of 30 mph or 40 mph through towns and villages. Gateways with coloured surfacings and carriageway roundals have been introduced. Additional pedestrian facilities have been provided, together with visibility improvements at certain junctions and improved signing and road markings throughout. The implementation of those measures was completed as recently as April, so it is too early to say how successful the schemes have been, but early signs are positive. Indeed, some evidence suggests that the schemes have contributed to a reduction in traffic flows on the A6 and the A52.
The A515 between the A50 Derby southern bypass and Ashbourne is narrow in parts, with similarly narrow or non-existent verges, which means that there is no simple means of widening the road. The county council estimates that traffic has increased on the road by 29 per cent. since the opening of that bypass in 1996. The council plans to resurface the worst sections of the road and undertake a signing and aligning review, which will improve safety. However, it is fair to say that that will not address the safety issues fully, so a topographical survey is also being undertaken with a view to including an improvement scheme within the 2001–02 programme. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.
I am aware of the situation in Calver, which is on the A623. I understand that the county council has reviewed the current 40 mph speed limit in the village and does not consider that a lower speed limit is warranted. However, it has agreed to extend the 40 mph limit towards Baslow to ensure that the speed limit signs are visible to drivers coming into the village. The council is currently processing the necessary traffic regulation orders. In addition, the county council is investigating the A623 as a whole. A capital allocation has been made for route enhancement measures to improve signing and carriageway delineation. The A623 has also been identified as a route that may benefit from mobile speed cameras.
I come now to the problem of noise on the A50 at Doveridge. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Highways Agency has a programme to quieten particularly noisy stretches of road. The A50 Doveridge bypass was not included in the list of most pressing cases, but in view of local concerns, there is no reason why it should not be assessed retrospectively in line with the original criteria. The Highways Agency is considering whether the circumstances at Doveridge warrant further noise analysis as a precursor to early maintenance work, which in turn could reduce the levels of noise from the road. The hon. Gentleman has made a strong case and, in view of his close interest in the issue, I will ensure that the Highways Agency continues to keep him fully aware of developments.
As can be seen, much work is being done at the local level to improve road safety, but what of national road safety policy? We are fortunate to be building on a relatively good track record in casualty reduction since the targets set by the previous Government in 1987. I am happy to acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's role in that as a Transport Minister in that Administration. The target was to reduce casualties by one third by 2000. By 1998, we had achieved a 39 per cent. reduction in the number of fatalities and a 45 per cent. reduction in the

27WH
number of serious injuries. That must be set against a significant rise in traffic over the same period. Moreover, Britain's road safety record is relatively good compared with that of other countries in Europe.
The new road safety strategy and targets for the next 10 years are even more challenging. By 2010, compared with the average for 1994–98, we want to see a 40 per cent. overall reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads, a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured and a 10 per cent. reduction in the rate of slight injuries.
To achieve the radical improvement in road safety that we wish to see during the next 10 years the Government must, through Government offices, the Highways Agency and others, work in close partnership with other bodies. We will work in partnership with local authorities that are developing local road safety strategies and targets as part of their local transport plans. We will also work with the police who make a substantial contribution to road safety by enforcing road traffic law. In addition, we will work with road safety organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and road user groups. Most importantly, we will need to work with individual road users themselves.
Obviously, in the remaining time available I cannot describe the full range of measures in the strategy, but I should like to focus on two key issues. First, the strategy has child safety at its core. Although our overall record for child road safety is good, unfortunately the same cannot be said for our record on child pedestrians. We are determined to improve our record and we will need to take a multi-pronged approach. That will include more traffic-calmed 20 mph zones. We also need to make improvements in the way in which we educate our children to be safer when using the road. That is not only about drivers taking care or slower speeds, but about helping children and others to understand better the risks that they face and how to deal with them. Finally, we must aim to have more children wearing seatbelts and to have more child restraints in cars.
Speed is another priority area. It used to be socially acceptable to have a few drinks and then drive, but once people understood that drink-driving kills, it was seen as irresponsible. Currently, many people do not see it as a great sin to drive at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone, but 85 per cent. of pedestrians hit at 40 mph will die compared with 45 per cent. at 30 mph and 5 per cent. at 20 mph. Speed kills. It is dangerous and antisocial and we must get that message across. The issue is driver responsibility. We will make it a major theme in road safety during the next 10 years.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for West Derbyshire for allowing us to discuss these important issues by means of this Adjournment debate.

Welsh School (London)
12 noon
Ms Julie Morgan: I first heard of the Welsh school in London, Ysgol Gymraeg Llundain, when I arrived here as a new Member in 1997. Many right hon. and hon. Members have known and helped this Welsh school for many years. I am sorry that more of them cannot be here today because of the clash with the meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee, but I am grateful to have this opportunity to put its case. They have supported the school by lobbying and fundraising.
I first heard of the school when I jointly set up a Welsh language class here in the House of Commons for hon. Members who wanted to improve their Welsh. When we came here as new Members from Wales after the 1997 election we all felt an obligation to get to know the language of our country better. Our teacher was Glenys Roberts, who also taught at the Welsh language school in London, and she enlisted our help to keep this well established school going. Some of us visited the school in Willesden Green and children were shown around the House of Commons. It was then that I became a supporter of the school.
Ysgol Gymraeg Llundain is the only Welsh-medium school outside Wales and it has been providing a Welsh-medium education here in London for more than 40 years. It has been based nearly all that time in the vestry of Willesden Green Welsh chapel. The present crisis in the school was precipitated by the closure of the chapel last summer because of a dwindling congregation. I went to see the premises and saw how the once beautiful chapel had fallen into decline. The chapel had only five members remaining when it closed.
The chapel and the vestry have now been sold and the school must find alternative premises in four weeks' time. The new owners of the chapel allowed it to stay until the end of the summer term although the chapel has been empty for the last year. No suitable permanent premises have yet been found, although temporary premises may be available. Suitable long-term premises are the key issue for the school. It has had many funding crises in the past and has always managed to keep going. It has many supporters in Wales, including some international Welsh stars, so it has always been able to appeal to someone to enable it to keep going. During the 38 years that it was based in the chapel in Willesden Green it could always rely on the support of the chapel, but that has now gone.
I have secured this debate to seek some commitment from the Government to help in this crisis. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is sympathetic towards us. She has been kind enough to meet me and other supporters from the Welsh group of MPs to discuss the issue. The school has 16 full-time pupils and 16 part-time pupils. The part-time pupils come on a Friday while attending schools in their local areas for the rest of the week. Some of the parents bring these children considerable distances to have the opportunity to keep up their own language. That is a fairly unusual arrangement, but it works.
Mrs. Betty Williams: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The Welsh Affairs Committee is currently examining social exclusion in

29WH
Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a solution to the problem is not found soon, the children whom she mentioned will indeed be socially excluded in London, which cannot be right?
Ms Morgan: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to have the opportunity to learn through one's native language and that language bears heavily on social exclusion issues. The Welsh Affairs Committee showed that that applies in Wales.
In addition to full and part-time pupils, there are 12 nursery children and 12 in the mother and toddler group. The school is small and I realise that concerns are often expressed about such schools. However, anyone who visited it and saw at first hand the range of opportunities available to the children, the commitment of the parents and the community spirit in the school would be impressed and would realise that any disadvantages regarding size are easily outweighed by the advantages.
Some children return to Wales to continue their education in the Welsh medium. Some families live in London temporarily and their children will return to Wales. Others will go on to secondary schools in the London area. The school is technically an independent school because it is outside the state system, but it has a policy of never turning away a new pupil. Parents pay what they can and generally help in the running of the school, which has a tremendous community commitment.
The school receives no money from Brent education authority. It wanted to gain voluntary-aided status, but was told that one of the conditions of gaining that is that it should teach the English curriculum at key stage 1. Key stage 2 is not a problem, because the school teaches the English and Welsh curriculum at that stage. However, the school feels that it would defeat its entire purpose if key stage 1 did not follow the Welsh curriculum. The problem of teaching an English curriculum applies only to children between the ages of five and seven.
I appeal to the Government to do what they can to find a way through a technical and bureaucratic problem. My right hon. Friend the Minister wrote to me after a meeting a few months ago. She said:
As the Department sees it, the school would have difficulties in demonstrating that it could deliver the core subject of English in the infant years through the medium of Welsh.
We are, in effect, asking for the school to be treated in the same way as Welsh language schools are in Wales. English is taught at that stage of the curriculum and the children in Welsh language schools in Wales have a good knowledge of the English language and are able to progress in it.
Why is it so important that the school survives? The school in London is part of the general demand for Welsh language education in Wales. After the Education Act 1944, parents began to influence local education policies and the first bilingual school was established—largely as a result of parental pressure—in Llanelli in 1947. In the 1950s, demand for secondary education, nursery schools and play groups—Ysgolion meithrin—in the Welsh medium grew. The development of Welsh medium education has resulted from public demand and it has been a popular grass roots
30WH
movement, particularly the play groups. These are not top-down, but grass roots, bottom-up developments that greatly influence the sort of education that people want in Wales.
Since I became a Member of Parliament I have opened three new nursery units in my constituency that teach in the Welsh medium. Local authorities generally cannot keep up with the demand in Wales for Welsh-medium education. My constituency contains Ysgol Glantaf, one of the largest Welsh-medium secondary schools in Wales. It is a successful school and its pupils regularly visit the House to discuss issues with me.
As in Welsh education, a similar growth has occurred in the status of the Welsh language. It has moved steadily forward since the Welsh Language Act 1967, which gave Welsh equal validity with English, albeit in a slightly grudging way. Since then, many developments have increased the status of the Welsh language in Wales.
As I said, the school in London is part of the demand for Welsh education that exists in Wales itself and it reflects the enthusiasm there for the Welsh language. The school has become a lifeline for families moving temporarily to London: the children can easily move back to Wales when they go to secondary schools or carry on with their education in London. There are half a million Welsh speakers in Wales and a proportion of them have inevitably been drawn to living in London. Despite a steady decline in the language between 1911 and 1981, by 1981 the number of Welsh speakers had stabilised and by 1991 an increase was visible, attributable, in part, to the growth of the playgroup movement and the grassroots revival of the language in Wales.
Today there is considerable enthusiasm for the Welsh language in Wales and many non-Welsh speaking Welsh people born in Wales, as well as English people who have moved to Wales, send their children to Welsh-medium schools. Parents often send their children to Welsh playgroups and nursery schools and it is common for mothers and fathers to learn the language with their children when they attend Welsh-medium playgroups.
London itself has an ancient Welsh community: the honourable Society of the Cymmrodorion is celebrating its 250th anniversary. A Welsh school was founded in Clerkenwell 300 years ago as a charity school for poor Welsh children in London. That school has developed and moved to Ashford, but its Welsh origins have been lost. It remains significant that 300 years ago, the Welsh in London were organising schools for Welsh children. Welsh people are, of course, some of the oldest communities of immigrants in London.
The establishment of the Welsh National Assembly has also increased awareness and pride in the Welsh national identity. Its proceedings are carried out bilingually. The only time that the Welsh language can be used by Members of Parliament is when the Welsh Grand Committee meets in Wales. Some of us are concerned about that restriction.
The growth of Welsh institutions and Welsh identity has been strongly supported by the different ethnic groups in Wales, who are aware of the importance of the preservation of language and culture. Many ethnic minority communities in Wales have helped to support the Welsh language and the establishment of the Welsh

31WH
National Assembly. The Welsh Affairs Committee also found that it was important for young people to be given opportunities to discuss issues such as social exclusion in their own language.
I know that the Minister is sympathetic to our cause. I appeal to the various institutions to work together to bring about a funding solution. Before devolution, the Welsh Office agreed and committed support to the Welsh community in Patagonia, and the Welsh Assembly has also given a commitment to such support. If we can support the Welsh community in Patagonia, there must be a way of supporting a Welsh school in London.
The school has gone straight to the National Assembly with a funding proposal for its running costs. It awaits a reply. In the past, the Welsh language board helped the school. Surely the Government can take a lead in London to help overcome the problems with the curriculum so that the local authority can help with the building and grant voluntary-aided status to the school. It will not establish a dangerous precedent because there is only one Welsh-medium school outside Wales. The circumstances are unique. The school has kept going for so long because of the parents' and the Welsh community's commitment. Now is the ideal time to provide a lifeline and to boost the school and the commitment that it has been given for so many years. With the establishment of the National Assembly, we are all much more aware of Welsh identity and of the importance of language and cultural roots. Whatever we do, we must not sentimentalise Wales. People in other parts of the United Kingdom and abroad sometimes see Wales as a place whose residents dress up in local costume and eat Welsh cakes, and whose only industry is coal. Sadly, most of the coal mines have gone, but we have a vibrant, multicultural community of which the language is an important part. I hope that the Minister will help us in dealing with the problem and that we will succeed in establishing the Welsh school in London—Ysgol Gymraeg Llundain—on a permanent basis.
12.15 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) for securing the debate. I was pleased to meet her and other colleagues to discuss the matter, and I fully accept the reasons why hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies are campaigning so hard to save the Welsh school in London. They support the school not only because it has a good tradition and an honourable history, but because it is part of their wish to ensure that everything possible is done to maintain Welsh culture, of which the Welsh language is a key part.
We explored possible avenues of support for the school at our meeting some five, six or seven weeks ago. It is fair to say that it was agreed that I might find it difficult to secure the routes that were discussed, whether they related to funding, relaxing the national curriculum rule or whatever else. Since our meeting, we have reconsidered the national curriculum and the rules for granting voluntary-aided or foundation status, and, as my hon. Friend said, approaches have been made to
32WH
the Welsh Assembly. Having considered the three options, I am not optimistic that any of them will provide a way forward in the weeks that remain before the end of term. However, I should like to speak about those three options, explain any problems and comment on routes that might still be open, even at this late stage.
My hon. Friend was right to say that the school is independent in status. The two main routes of support that are open to me as a Minister are either to fund it directly as an independent school or to encourage it to seek entry into the maintained sector. I shall deal with the latter point first. It is still possible for the school to seek foundation or voluntary-aided status. The Government encourage schools to take that route from the independent sector to the maintained sector. Since the general election, we have admitted 11 schools from the independent sector to the maintained sector, many of which represent particular religious or ethnic minority groups. They range from Muslim schools in Birmingham, where my own constituency is situated, to Seventh Day Adventist schools. There has been an honourable and rigorous debate about the criteria that should be used in granting schools access to the maintained sector. Such access secures funding, ensures that the schools receive revenue funding that is based on the number of students that they have and gives them access to capital funding. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept the need for criteria against which judgments can be made on whether a school can have access to the maintained sector.
Until now, the decision on whether a school should become part of the maintained sector has lain with the Secretary of State, who took the final decision on all the 11 cases in which we have so far acted. As my hon. Friend knows, that will not happen from now on. Apart from dealing with tail-end applications where the wish to enter the maintained sector was published before the change in arrangements, the decision on any future wish to become a maintained school from the independent sector will lie with the local school organisation committee, and with the schools adjudicator when there are disagreements. I want to assure my hon. Friend that, even at this late stage, it is still possible for a plan to be published to join the maintained sector. That plan would be discussed by the school organisation committee in Brent, where the school is situated, and, in the case of a disagreement, it would go to the schools adjudicator. It would be less than honest if I did not emphasise the criteria that the school organisation committee would have to consider in deciding whether the school could be admitted to the maintained sector. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North will accept that we need criteria and must be seen to administer the criteria as fairly as possible.
The school organisation committee would first need to consider whether more places were needed, although we would want to encourage the committee to embrace diversity and not to be fettered by a need for counting up places and bodies. However, we do not want to provide for too many surplus places. The committee would have to be assured that the funding currently received by Brent, both from revenue and capital, was sufficient to ensure the medium and long-term survival of the school, and that the school would teach the national curriculum.

33WH
As my hon. Friends know, most difficulties arise from the issue of teaching the national curriculum. I am delighted that the national curriculum now encourages the teaching of the Welsh language in Wales. If the national curriculum means anything, it means that there is an entitlement to a body of knowledge, skills and experiences in every school maintained by a local education authority. It is not bureaucratic to raise the objection that a school does not teach key stage 1 in English, because that goes to the heart of the national curriculum. As part of the standards agenda, the Government have shown great concern about the core subjects of English, maths and science, because we have been desperate to maintain an entitlement in relation to those core subjects, as well as flexibility in others. I emphasise that neither I nor the Secretary of State would take a long-term decision about whether English, a core subject of the national curriculum, could be taught at key stage 1 through the medium of Welsh.
Other schools that we have admitted to the maintained sector also want to teach in other languages. Many Muslim schools would like to teach in Urdu and many Jewish schools would like to teach in Hebrew. One of the sticking points has been that we have had to seek assurances that those schools would teach the national curriculum. Although a precedent would not be set, by allowing more schools to teach in Welsh, I ask hon. Members to accept that a precedent might be set that would lead other ethnic minority groups or groups of different faiths to ask why they cannot teach in other languages. Because of the entitlement for five to seven-year-olds to learn English as part of the national curriculum, I suspect that a school organisation committee might find such proposals difficult. If the London Welsh school is to persuade the local family of schools that it should join their number, it must address the issue of teaching English at key stage 1.
The second route would be for the Secretary of State to fund the school directly, because that power exists in law. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Sir J. Morris), a former Secretary of State for Wales, told me how the power to do that had been secured in previous legislation passed by a Labour Government. As hon. Members know, that element of the legislation has never been brought into force. I suspect that the present Secretary of State would be nervous about enacting that. My hon. Friend understands the politics of independent schools. Given our view of assisted places, direct funding for independent schools now comes only under the music and ballet scheme—MBS. I am not sure that I could say to the Secretary of State that the case was made for the money needed to make the school, which has 16 full-time students and 16 part-time students, the only independent school outside the MBS that we fund centrally.
The third route by which the London school could seek salvation would be if the Welsh Assembly used its powers to offer funding. The Assembly has that power—its functions for education lie within Wales but it has a power to support the promotion of Welsh outside Wales. It would legally be open to the Assembly
34WH
to decide to offer funds for that purpose. That matter is clearly for the Assembly and we must observe what it wants to do.
I come to the debate with almost a sense of frustration. I understand that the school is important to the Welsh community in London, in terms not only of maintaining heritage but of ensuring an easy transition to learning in a Welsh school for children of families that move back to Wales. The Adjournment debate has focused my mind, as such debates do. The avenues considered so far have been seeking funding for an independent school or allowing a school that teaches in Welsh to join the family of schools in the London borough of Brent, which does not seem possible at this late stage.
I make this comment with trepidation because it is not for me to say—other communities in London and beyond value language and the cultural heritage of language. They want their children to learn and to do well in the education system in which they find themselves but want to ensure that there are opportunities for the children to continue to learn languages. In this case, the interest is in children learning in Welsh. I accept that there is a big difference between learning Welsh and studying the national curriculum in Welsh. If the community cannot secure the school's teaching the compulsory hours to the compulsory years, it might have to find another avenue or a different status so that the expertise in the community is preserved in the interests of the children.
Mr. Huw Edwards: I speak as someone brought up in the Welsh community in London. I did not attend the London Welsh school but did attend one of the fine Welsh Sunday schools in London, which had a tremendous influence on me. Would it be possible for a minor amendment to be considered to the legislation governing the national curriculum to get round the anomaly?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. Interventions must be brief.
Ms Morris: I have never known an amendment to the national curriculum that was minor. That is a real problem. I understand what my hon. Friend says—with his point about learning at Sunday schools, he put more bluntly and concisely the point that I was trying to make. The Government would be against removing the obligation on all schools in the English system to teach the core subjects of English, maths and science. We have done so much on the standards agenda in the three years since the election to ensure that every child in a school maintained by an English local education authority is fluent in English and has mastered the basic skills. Once we start to make an exception—
Mrs. Betty Williams rose—
Ms Morris: I cannot give way because I must sit down shortly.
Once we start making an exception and saying that children do not need to learn English as a core subject, we open up the floodgate to other people wanting to do the same.

35WH
I understand where my hon. Friends come from and the heritage of the institution that they seek to save. I know that time is running out if the school is to continue in its present state. We will wait to see what the National Assembly decides, but if that fails, I very much hope that a different legal route can be found, other than a formal school, by which the expertise and the traditions of those Welsh schools can be preserved for the children of future generations.

Motability Finance Ltd.
12.30 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful to have this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the rather curious case of Walter Kernick of Kingskerswell and his N-registered Ford Escort car. At first sight, it may not seem to be the most weighty matter ever to have been debated in the House of Commons, but once I have described the circumstances of the case, hon. Members will appreciate that it was difficult to see how else I could bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. I have a long and tedious tale to tell of the incompetence of Motability Finance Ltd. in its dealings with Mr. Kernick and me.
In September 1996, Mr. Kernick bought his car from Mr. and Mrs. Johnson of Newton Abbot. Last spring, almost three years after buying the car for £7,500, Mr Kernick took the car to a Ford main dealer with a view to part-exchanging it for another car. The dealer did the usual checks and discovered that the car was owned by Motability Finance. That was the first time that Mr. Kernick had any reason to think that there was anything untoward about the transaction with the Johnsons. He bought the car in 1996 in good faith; he did not know that Mrs. Johnson had obtained the car through a hire agreement with Motability Finance.
Any first-week law student would know—anyone who was old enough to vote might know—that one is not entitled to something that was bought on finance. The matter was therefore referred to the Devon and Cornwall constabulary, which wrote to me in due course to say that, although the sale of the vehicle appeared to indicate theft of the vehicle by Mrs. Johnson, the Crown Prosecution Service was of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence to show that at the time of the transaction Mrs. Johnson had carried out the sale dishonestly—a fundamental element in the prosecution of such a crime. The CPS said that Mrs. Johnson alleged that although she had signed the hire agreement document, the clause prohibiting the disposal of the vehicle had not been drawn to her attention. The burden of proof could not be satisfied, and the CPS was therefore not prepared to prosecute.
It is probably a matter for a future Adjournment debate, but it would appear that the Crown Prosecution Service's advice to the police in Devon—and, for all I know, everywhere else in the country—is that, providing a rascal is cute enough to say that he did not see that part of the contract, no prosecutions can be brought in Devon and Cornwall, or anywhere else, of those who buy cars on finance and then flog them off on the side. That is reprehensible, and I intend to return to the matter in due course.
On 27 May 1999, Mr. Kernick received a letter from Motability Finance telling him that he had 10 days in which to return the car or face court action. Motability was legally right. Mr. Kernick had fallen foul of the principle known to lawyers as "Nemo dat quod non habet", which loosely translates as "Rascals who do not have ownership cannot pass it on to others". The difficulty is that Mr. Kernick is not a lawyer and does not speak Latin. He thought that he might be given a degree of straight dealing when he dealt with Motability Finance, but that was not to be.

37WH
On 14 June, I wrote to Motability Finance saying that, although it might be legally in the right, it did not have a leg to stand on morally and that it should transfer ownership of the vehicle to Mr. Kernick without any more to do. I suggested that the firm carry out urgent inquiries to see how many other cars it had managed to lose track of over the years. I also wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Security. I was worried that it might not be an isolated case and that Motability Finance should look to its own records and procedures to find out how many more of its cars had gone missing.
On 15 July, I wrote again to the Secretary of State informing him that I had not received a reply to my letter of 14 June to Motability Finance. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he would write to the chief executive of Motability Finance saying that outstanding correspondence should be dealt with urgently. On 13 August, I wrote another letter to Motability Finance expressing concern that my original letter had still not been answered.
At that stage, what might be called low farce entered. Three days later, Motability Finance wrote to me, saying:
Unfortunately, we are only in receipt of one letter from you, a copy of which is attached.
That was my letter of 14 June, asking the firm to deal with the matter. It did not deal with the points raised in my letter; it simply said that it had come to an arrangement with Mr. Kernick, which consisted of him having his car taken back.
Motability Finance wrote to me on 3 September saying that Mr. Kernick had agreed to buy the car from it. He understood that to mean the auction value of the car and hoped that a process would take place in which they would be able to arrange a settlement figure. On 2 January 2000, Mr. Kernick told me that he had agreed to buy the car but that Motability was dragging its feet on coming up with an acceptable settlement figure. He contacted me again on 14 January to say that he had heard nothing from Motability and that it still had not produced a settlement figure.
Matters went on in the same vein until 10 May when Motability Finance sprung into life, although not to the extent of answering the correspondence that I had initiated in June last year. It wrote:
Dear Mr. Kernick
Settlement in the sum of £3500.00
We have been reviewing our file and are disappointed to note that you have failed to respond to letter with reference to settlement or whether you will return the vehicle.
Under the circumstances we confirm that we will accept the sum of £3,500 in full and final settlement…Please confirm whether you are willing to pay the above amount or return the vehicle.
Please confirm your intentions by 20 May…otherwise further action will be taken.
Mr. Kernick was not surprised and he passed the letter on to me. I was exasperated and wrote to Motability Finance on 23 May explaining that I had raised specific concerns as long ago as the previous June. I said that if it would not deal with those concerns, there was no alternative but to bring the matter to the Floor of the House.
I received a reply on 5 June, just nine days short of the celebration—if that is the right word to use—of the non-answered letter, which was signed by the fleet operations
38WH
director. I do not know what type of fleet he directs or how many cars are in it—I suspect that he does not know that—but he said:
I am sorry to read of your dissatisfaction and disappointment with us over this matter. I note that there have been many communications between this office and yourself—
yes, me saying to Motability Finance, "Will you please deal with the points that I raised on June 14 the previous year."
He went on to say:
The HPI—
hire purchase information—
register would indicate MFL to be the owners of the vehicle during those … years. Had Mr Kernick checked with the HPI register. he would have discovered that the vehicle was not Mrs Johnson's to offer for sale.
That is almost surreal. Here we have a fleet operations manager, who, I assume, is paid a not inconsiderable amount for such weighty responsibilities, but who allows his cars to be stolen over a three-year period. He did not know about the theft until Mr. Kernick told him, but had the gall to say that Mr. Kernick—an ordinary, straightforward chap who has probably never heard of an HPI register—should have done something about it.
The letter gets worse. It explains why it is easy not to trace vehicles and offers a reassurance. It says:
Due to changes in the Scheme, we are not in full control of the servicing, maintenance and buyback obligation of all new Motability vehicles since March 1999. This relieves suppliers of their obligations and allows us tighter control of Motability vehicles. We are confident that situations such as this would be identified and resolved much quicker.
There is then what I like to think of as a misplaced attempt at humour. The fleet operations director says:
We have a responsibility to the Scheme to ensure that losses are kept to a minimum.
Indeed, but my dealings—or, rather, non-dealings—with Motability Finance suggest that it is doing no such thing. There is no doubt about the legal or moral position, but Motability Finance seems to have no control over the vehicles that it owns. It relies on people sometimes exchanging vehicles and initiating an HPI check that reveals a vehicle as missing. That is not good enough.
The real villain is Mrs. Johnson. Motability Finance could get a qualified motor engineer to assess the car's value. It would take responsibility for the loss and sue the original converter. However, they will not do that. Why? Because poor Mr. Kernick is a much easier target. They know where his car is and they can seize it at any time.
I do not know what the car is worth. In the menacing correspondence it started at £3,500 and then went down to £2,900. I carried out some investigation in the motor trade and I am told that, once the Motability snatch squad has lifted it and flogged it at auction, it might, after auction expenses, fetch £2,000. I asked Mr. Kernick to ask a dealer what he might get in part exchange and I am told that that would be about £1,750. However, that is not the point. Motability should undertake a radical assessment of its procedures and write off the relevant sum now. I have no idea what the matter must have cost it in executive time. Its argument might be that there is no slot available in its accounts for the writing off of such sums. However, if it

39WH
wanted to it could pay Mr. Kernick a consultancy fee equal to the value of the motor car and thank him for drawing to its attention the woeful state of its administration. The idea that Motability will stand by while this ordinary man's car is snatched in the way I have discussed is appalling.
When I decided to bring the matter to the House of Commons I did so quite deliberately because I realised that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), would respond. I hope that I do not embarrass him too much by saying that I have been extremely impressed by the way in which he has dealt with my constituency correspondence. Whatever our political disagreements, it is obvious from his letters that he takes an active interest. He is not one of those Ministers who simply signs ministerial drafts. That is apparent from the quality of the response and some of the handwritten notes on the letters. I realise that, to an extent, he may, in the present instance, have to play close to his chest. However, I like to think that, if I had been a fly on the wall at the meeting that I assume took place between him and senior officials of Motability Finance Ltd., I would have heard him use the sort of language that he uses when raising a constituency case.
Most people know of Motability and know that it provides money to enable disabled people to buy cars. I do not know under what arrangement with the Government it operates—whether it is under a franchise, for example. But I know that on rare occasions morality does not follow the law. The law points in one direction and morality in quite another. It would be appalling if, in the end, Motability were to send in the snatch squad to take this man's car away. I am sorry that, because of its complete inactivity and unwillingness to explain, I have had to bring the matter before the House of Commons. However, that is the ultimate redress for any British citizen.
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I start by thanking the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for his kind remarks about me. I also thank him for bringing the matter to my attention and that of the House, both because of the issues about Motability that it raises and because of the consequences for his constituent. Of course I appreciate how distressing it must have been for Mr. Kernick to find out that he had no legal title to the vehicle and I am sorry for the delays in dealing with his queries. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me see an early draft of his speech, which helped me to prepare answers to try to end the uncertainty faced by his constituent.
The facts of the case are relatively straightforward. In February 1996 Mrs. Johnson, who lives in Newton Abbot, made an agreement to lease a Ford Escort from Motability Finance Ltd., and seven months later Mrs. Johnson disposed of the vehicle to Mr. Kernick, although she did not own it and did not have the authority to sell it. It had been supplied to Mrs. Johnson by Newton Abbot Motors, who, under the Motability rules, should have recorded the vehicle's keeper on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's V5 document,
40WH
the log book, as Mrs. Johnson, care of Motability Finance Ltd. Instead, it put Mrs. Johnson's home address on the document. That error might have given Mr. Kernick false reassurance that Mrs. Johnson was selling her own car.
However, I must make it clear that there is no legal requirement for the V5 document to carry a reference to any leasing or hire purchase owner. It is always advisable for a buyer to perform a hire purchase index check to find out whether any other party has an interest in a second-hand vehicle before parting with money for it. Unfortunately, Mr. Kernick did not do that, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge said.
MFL did not find out that Mrs. Johnson had sold its car until March 1999, because she continued to pay her lease charges to MFL until then. MFL took lawful action to recover the car from Mr. Kernick. The authority for its action comes from section 21(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which says that
where the goods are sold by a person who is not their owner, and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Kernick and, within the constraints of the law, I should like to do whatever I can to help him. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that the problem that Mr. Kernick faces was created by Mrs. Johnson, who sold him a car that she did not own. Some of the blame should also lie with Newton Abbott Motors, which failed to register the keeper's address properly as care of Motability Finance Ltd., as it was required to do as a Motability supplier. I shall shortly return to discussing what can be done to seek repayment from those responsible for the losses incurred.
First, I shall comment on the situation that faces Mr. Kernick. I understand that, in September last year, he asked MFL what he would have to pay to buy legal title to the car. MFL did not reply until last month, when it offered to accept £3,500 in full and final settlement. I am concerned about the delay in making that offer and I discussed it with MFL. It said that the delay occurred in part because of MFL's wish not to put pressure on Mr. Kernick, because it knew of his poor state of health. That is not a convincing explanation for the delay.
Mr. Kernick believes that MFL is asking too much for the residual value of the vehicle, and several lower prices have been mentioned in the debate and the correspondence that I have seen. The most recent figure is an estimate of the current auction value in the hon. Gentleman's letter to MFL dated 15 June.
It is not for me to negotiate a price. I do not own the vehicle and it would not be right to discuss that issue on the Floor of the House. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I saw the chief executive of MFL yesterday in my office. He assured me that he is willing to agree a fair price for the vehicle and that he understands the need to do so quickly. If, for example, both parties took the figure mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's letter as a guide price, the matter could be settled within the week.
At yesterday's meeting, I also asked the chief executive what action he would take to recover his losses from the parties whose actions caused them. He assured

41WH
me that MFL would commence legal proceedings against Mrs. Johnson. He also explained that MFL could not seek damages from Newton Abbott Motors for failing to register the right details on the V5 document, because the company no longer exists. It went into receivership and was sold to Evans Halshaw, which took over responsibility for maintaining Motability vehicles supplied by Newton Abbott Motors. I have asked the chief executive of MFL to find out whether Evans Halshaw also took over liability for the omission by Newton Abbott Motors.
Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful for the Minister's response, which is everything that I expected. If Motability belatedly realises that it should take action against Mrs. Johnson and it is prepared to issue proceedings against her, surely the least that it should do—it should of course wipe out Mr. Kernick's
problem—is try to recover the vehicle's present value from Mrs. Johnson and pursue Mr. Kernick only if that does not work?
Mr. Bayley: I will pass that comment to Motability Finance Ltd. to consider when instructing its lawyers.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge raised some wider policy matters. He said that MFL should take a closer interest in what happens to its cars. Until March last year, the dealers who supplied MFL vehicles were responsible for maintaining them and for buying them from Motability Finance Ltd. at the end of the lease. Unfortunately, that arrangement permitted the problems to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention when the dealer fell down on its duties. However, since March 1999, MFL has taken direct responsibility for control of maintenance arrangements and the sale of lease and vehicles. That involves an in-house audit trail on the vehicle's activity throughout the life of the lease.
Motability and Motability Finance Ltd. assure me that correspondence from Members of Parliament will be handled either by Motability or by the chief executive of Motability Finance Ltd., who asked me to apologise on behalf of MFL for the way in which hon. Members' inquiries were handled. Mobility is aware of the importance of a speedy response whenever possible. It has a customer commitment to answer in full or to let the correspondent know within four days of receiving a letter what is happening to the case.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman because my Department has been slow in answering some of his letters, and I have not yet replied to letters written immediately prior to the debate.
It is a pity that this case occurred, as the work done by Motability provides valuable help in assisting severely disabled people. At present, 380,000 cars are leased through the scheme. Motability works constantly to ensure that the service to disabled people fulfils their needs and that dealerships acting on behalf of a scheme meet Motability's high standards. It operates an accreditation scheme for dealerships to promote a first-class service to its customers and I regret that the actions, or inactions, of the dealership in the case in question should have caused the hon. Gentleman's constituent such problems.
The case brings home an important point: anyone purchasing a car should take precautions to ensure that the vendor has the right to sell the vehicle. The Office of
42WH
Fair Trading produces a useful leaflet, entitled "Buying a used car", which contains information on checking whether a vehicle is subject to a financial arrangement with a party other than the vendor. It also contains details of whom to contact should a person have difficulties with the dealer from whom they bought the vehicle.
Now that the issues in the case have been brought to light and examined by MFL, I hope that everyone involved has learned lessons and that it will not be necessary for any hon. Member to bring a similar case to the House. The new procedures introduced by Motability Finance Ltd., in which it takes direct control of the management of the car during the period of the lease, will provide greater safeguards, although it will not deal with every case in which a Motability customer seeks to abuse the system. Motability and MFL are aware of that and, although their handling of this case is not a good example, their wish to counter abuse of the system is at the forefront of their objectives.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many cars that are registered to Motability Finance Ltd. are currently missing. MFL is pursuing the return of 23 cars that were sold in circumstances similar to those that we are considering today. That is a small number when compared with the total number of leased cars in the scheme—approximately one car in 15,000—and lower than is achieved by most leased schemes, but it is still too high. I have therefore asked my officials to explore with the DVLA in Swansea whether the V5 form could be changed to reduce that number.
Finally, it might be helpful if I explain the links between Motability, Motability Finance Ltd. and the Government. Motability is a charitable company, incorporated by royal charter. It was established in 1977 as a partnership between the Government, charitable and private sectors to help disabled people to obtain vehicles on favourable terms by using their disability living allowance higher rate mobility component or war pensioner's mobility supplement.
Motability Finance Ltd. is a private company, which works to meet the objectives and service levels established by Motability. It is owned by a partnership of five major clearing banks—Lloyds TSB, the Bank of Scotland, Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland and HSBC—which provide finance at preferential rates. The lending facility by the banks has increased over time from an initial £100 million to the current level of more than £3 billion. They provide finance to purchase the cars, which are then provided to disabled people on contract hire agreements, and are reimbursed by the diversion of disability living allowance and war pensioners' mobility supplement payments from my Department. That is a massive financing commitment, and the Motability scheme could not exist without the banks' support. I believe that it is the biggest car leasing operation in the world and accounts for 7 per cent. of new car sales in the UK.
My Department acts as a sponsor of the Motability scheme, although we are not involved in operational matters. The rules, terms of the agreement and administration of the scheme are for Motability to

43WH
decide, in consultation with their service providers. However, by virtue of the diversion of customers' disability living allowance to pay Motability lease charges, we have some influence over aspects of the scheme. The fact that payments for vehicles are made from disability living allowance, and that the scheme benefits from concessions on VAT and corporation tax, means that there is a direct Government interest in the working of the scheme.
Those concessions, along with the direct negotiations between Motability, Motability Finance Ltd. and car manufacturers, mean that the scheme can provide
44WH
disabled people with transport at an advantageous cost. Motability customers can obtain cars for as little as £24.99 a week. The lease provides not only access to the car, but insurance and AA or RAC assistance.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the problems in this case to my attention. I should also be grateful if he would pass on my sympathies to his constituent. As I have explained, Motability Finance Ltd. is an independent private company, and I cannot therefore issue it with an instruction. However, I hope that a satisfactory agreement between the parties concerned can be reached in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the business plan of the Driving Standards Agency concerning its future policy on test centre closures; if he will list, by region, the test centres targeted for closure; and what the timetable is for such closures.[125588]

  Mr. Hill
  The Driving Standards Agency's Business Plan for 2000–01 announced targets for the disposal of all vacant space over a five-year period. The target for 2000–01 is a 48 per cent. reduction, which should save fee payers about £145,000 annually. Closures of individual test centres will be considered on their merits and with regard to local circumstances.

  The Agency has consulted on the closure of the following driving test centres in the Wales and Western Area:

  Pembroke Dock and Haverfordwest—rationalising at Withybush.

  Portsmouth—relocating to the north of the city.

  Minehead.

  Representations are currently being considered.

  For the future, proposals for test centre openings and closures will, as far as practicable, be considered across the group of centres serving a locality. When proposals for a locality have been developed, the Agency will consult interested parties. This strategy should provide a network of improved test centres delivering a better quality of customer service, while adapting to changes in the demand for driving tests and test requirements.

  RMS St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 59W, on RMS St. Helena, for how long RMS St. Helena was made available for service during the Falklands conflict; and for how many days it was in the war zone.[125592]

  Mr. Hill
  RMS St. Helena was made available for Royal Navy charter between May and September 1982 but did not leave the UK until 13 June 1982. The ship was in the war zone for 17 days from 26 June 1982 to 12 July 1982 which was the end of the qualifying period.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many civilians served on RMS St. Helena during the Falklands conflict; of these how many were from(a) St. Helena, (b) the Falklands,
  (c) the United Kingdom and (d) elsewhere; and how many have been awarded the South Atlantic Medal.[125593]
  112W
  Mr. Hill
  Approximately 32 civilians served on RMS St. Helena at the time of the Falklands War. Of these, 21 were from St Helena, none from the Falklands, 11 were from the United Kingdom and none from elsewhere. None of these people have been awarded the South Atlantic Medal.

  Road Deaths (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he has taken to reduce the number of deaths on North Yorkshire's roads.[125872]

  Mr. Hill
  This Government are committed to further improvements in road safety. We launched a new road safety strategy in March this year, and we are providing substantial extra resources for Local Transport Plans.

  In the Local Transport Capital Settlement for 2000–01, North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) received £8.5m as a block allocation, an increase of 58 per cent. over 1999–2000. This increase will allow NYCC to place additional emphasis on local safety schemes during the current financial year.

  We have also in the region commissioned two safety studies which will investigate trunk road safety problems, one between Bramham and Barton on the Al and the other between Scotch Corner and Penrith on the A66. Details of these studies, together with other planned trunk road safety schemes, are outlined in the letter from the Acting Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to the hon. Member, 29 February 2000, Official Report, columns 190W–92W.

  In North Yorkshire there has been a continuing reduction in the fatal and seriously injured categories, and in 1998 the County met the then national target of a one third reduction by the year 2000 compared with the 1981–85 base.

  Road Accidents (A21)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many accidents involving one or more vehicles occurred on the stretch of the A21 between the intersections with the B2079 and B2099 in each of the last five years, setting out in each case whether personal injury occurred.[125735]

  Mr. Hill
  The numbers of personal injury accidents on this stretch of road is shown for the last five years for which figures are available.

  Number

  1994

  6

  1995

  7

  1996

  11

  1997

  7

  1998

  11

  No information is available regarding damage-only accidents.

  Campers (Unauthorised Waste)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his
  113W
  answer of 8 June 2000, Official Report, column 312W, what representations he has received from local authorities and others concerning the effectiveness of powers under section 59(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in penalising the depositing of waste by unauthorised campers.[125772]

  Mr. Mullin
  I am not aware of any representations on the effectiveness of these powers.

  Housing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps he is taking to evaluate new approaches to allocating social housing, as proposed in the Housing Green Paper; and if he will make a statement;[126013]

  (2) what recent guidance he has given to local authorities on dealing with categories of applicants who have not traditionally applied for local authority accommodation; and if he will make a statement.[126017]

  Mr. Mullin
  In April, we published a Housing Green Paper, "Quality and choice: A Decent Home For All". This included our proposals for modernising policies that affect people's opportunities to access social housing. The Housing Green Paper set out proposals to give applicants for social housing a greater say over where they live. Local authorities will be encouraged to develop lettings systems which provide applicants with much more information about available housing, allowing them to make decisions about their housing options. People who may not have traditionally applied for social housing will be able to apply for vacant properties but we will want to ensure that priority goes to people in the greatest housing need. However, in some areas, local authorities may wish to implement local lettings plans to tackle social problems on particular estates. This may involve giving priority to people who would help to create more sustainable communities or to provide housing for key public sector workers.

  Responses to the Housing Green Paper have been invited by 31 July 2000. Following the consultation period, the Government will invite local authorities to pilot customer-focused schemes. This will include the need to test the impact of local lettings plans. All the pilot schemes will be carefully evaluated. The Government will also issue a revised version of the Code of Guidance on lettings and homelessness advising local authorities how they can implement choice-based lettings under the current legislative framework.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the definition of homelessness contained in the Housing Act 1996 will be used in future housing legislation; and if he will make a statement.[126016]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Housing Green Paper, which was issued for consultation on 4 April, includes proposals for strengthening the protection available to homeless people. The Government intend to take forward these proposals in the light of responses to the Green Paper. There are no present plans to change the statutory definition of homelessness.

  Landing Slot Allocations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the system of landing slot allocations at major UK airports.[126201]

  Mr. Mullin
  Slot allocation is governed by EC Regulation 95/93. At airports where demand for slots significantly exceeds supply, they are allocated by an independent slot co-ordinator, using criteria set out in the Regulation, in international guidelines, and in any local rules. There are currently four such airports in the UK: London Heathrow, London Gatwick, London Stansted and Manchester. We are awaiting proposals from the Commission for reform of EC 95/93.

  Landfill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department made, prior to the publication of the Waste Strategy 2000: England and Wales (Command Paper 4693), of the experiences in other countries of landfill mining, with particular reference to Germany; and if he will make a statement.[126633]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: UK landfill practices differ from most other countries. The mixing of hazardous and non-hazardous waste is more common in UK landfill sites, and they contain more moisture due to wet landfill operating systems. There would be significant engineering problems in drying excavated waste, some of which would be hazardous. The Environment Agency has therefore advised that landfill mining has limited potential in the UK.

  Ministerial Visits (Overseas)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the(a) itinerary, (b) cost and (c) purpose of his visit to (i) Nigeria and (ii) Sierra Leone in the week beginning 12 June.[126547]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: I visited Nigeria and Sierra Leone at the request of the Prime Minister from 11–15 June in order to enhance bilateral relations, encourage UK business and thank the service men and women leaving Sierra Leone as well as visiting those who have just arrived.

  I visited Abuja, Lagos, Kano and Freetown. In Nigeria I was accompanied by a business team and met the President, Vice-President and other Ministers as well as religious leaders, NGOs and British and Nigerian business leaders.

  In Sierra Leone I met the President, Vice-President and Foreign Secretary and the Mayor and other civic leaders of Freetown. I also visited HMS Ocean and met service men and women from the Royal Marines, the Royal Navy, the Royal Naval Reserve and 2 Royal Anglian, who are providing the Short Term Training Team, as well as members of other armed services.

  The cost of my visit to Nigeria was approximately £5,500. For security reasons I flew to Sierra Leone with the RAF. The cost was approximately £24,000.

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate the Government have made of the cost to public funds of implementing their proposals on access to the countryside, including start-up costs and operational costs.[126863]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: Placing monetary values on the cost of the Government's proposals for creating a new statutory right of access to open countryside well in advance of such a right coming into force is inevitably subject to a degree of uncertainty. The Government have undertaken a Regulatory Impact Assessment which suggests the additional annual costs to the public sector, for which monetarised values have been derived, to be in the order of £2 million to £3 million a year, with one-off costs of about £6 million.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account local authorities are obliged to take of public health concerns when determining planning applications for telecommunications masts.[126986]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case. In doing so, authorities may have regard to the report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones published on 11 May.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on their advice to local authorities with respect to planning applications for telecommunications masts.[126988]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My officials regularly discuss aspects of telecommunications development with officials from the Scottish Executive. They have, in particular, held discussions about the range of actions being taken forward in response to the Stewart report's recommendations on planning.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given to local authorities with respect to determining planning applications for telecommunications masts; and if he will make a statement. [126987]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Government planning policy for telecommunications is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (revised): Telecommunications, and the Department's Circular 4/99, "Planning for Telecommunications". In addition, a letter was sent to all Council leaders on 23 July 1999, providing advice about the health aspects of telecommunications masts.

  In its response to the report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, issued on 11 May 2000 and placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the Government said that they were minded to introduce a requirement for an application for full planning permission for all new
  116W
  telecommunications masts, but would need to consult widely before doing so, including on the principle and precise scope of any new arrangements. A copy of the response was sent to all Chief Planning Officers on 11 May.

  We aim to issue a consultation document in the summer, with a view to being able to introduce revised procedures and guidance by the end of the year. In the meantime, Local Planning Authorities should continue to deal with planning applications for telecommunications on the basis of the current legislative arrangements and policy guidance.

  Recycling
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to enable local authorities to meet the set-up costs for intensive recycling. [126469]

  Mr. Mullin
  Funding for local authorities is being considered as part of the current spending review, alongside all the Government's spending pressures. The outcome of the review will be announced by the end of July.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC Special Branch
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what time and on what date the RUC Special Branch's Tasking and Co-ordinating Group was informed by any branch of the security forces or services of security operations associated with incidents in the Forfar Street area of Belfast on 9 September 1987, the Newington Street area of Belfast on 16 May 1988, the Waterville area of Belfast on 23 September 1988 and the Forterllian Drive area of Belfast on 12 February 1989.[114593]

  Mr. Ingram
  My hon. Friend refers to the following:

  The incident that occurred in Forfar Street area on 9 September 1987. I have assumed he is referring to the murder of Patrick Hamill on 8 September 1987. The details of the incident were referred to the Royal Ulster Constabulary's Tasking and Co-ordinating Group at 17.55 hrs on 8 September 1987;

  The incident that occurred in the Newington Street area on 16 May 1988. I have assumed he is referring to the murder of Mr. Terence McDade on 10 May 1988. The details of the incident were referred to the Royal Ulster Constabulary's Tasking and Co-ordinating Group at 22.39 hrs on 10 May 1988;

  The incident that occurred on 23 September 1988. An exact time of when the incident was referred to the Royal Ulster Constabulary's Tasking and Co-ordinating Group is not available, but police were informed at 04.32 hrs on 23 September 1988;

  The incident that occurred in the Forterllian area on
  12 February 1989. I have assumed he is referring to the murder of Mr. Patrick Finucane at Fortwilliam Drive. The

  117W
  details of the incident were referred to the Royal Ulster Constabulary's Tasking and Co-ordinating Group at 19.41 hrs on 12 February 1989.

  No-smoking Policy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness of his Department's no-smoking policy and (b) the proportion of his Department's offices that do not allow smoking.[125150]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The NIO has a well established policy on smoking. A complete ban on smoking has operated effectively in the Department since 1995. This policy is supported by participation in the national no-smoking day campaign and a series of health awareness events where staff who smoke are offered practical advice and information on how to stop.

  Smoking is not permitted in any NIO offices apart from designated smoking rooms.

  Police Authority
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements have been made for the appointment of a new Police Authority for Northern Ireland to succeed the present Authority whose term of office expires on 28 June.[127323]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Police Authority has a vital task to perform in securing the maintenance of an effective and efficient police force. It also has a very important role to play in continuing to enhance the relationship between the police and the public it serves in the period before the planned Policing Board takes over from the Authority.

  I have therefore appointed the current Chairman, Vice-Chairman and 16 members of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland to serve from 29 June 2000 for a further three years (as required by statute) or until the Policing Board takes over from them, probably at the end of March 2001. I have also appointed four new members and in making those appointments I have, as required by the Police (NI) Act 1998, consulted the 26 local district councils. In addition, and in accordance with the guidelines issued by Dame Rennie Fritchie, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, applications for appointment were invited from other individuals. As a result, the Authority widely represents the community and will provide a necessary measure of continuity in the period leading to establishment of the Policing Board.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much financial assistance will be available to fund organic conversion in the current financial year.[127017]

  Mr. Morley
  We expect to spend £12 million on aid for conversion under the Organic Farming Scheme in financial year 2000–01.
  118W
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which European Union countries provide continuous financial support to farmers after the conversion process to organic farming has been completed. [127019]

  Mr. Morley
  The hon. Member may like to refer to the table of statistics (page 51 of the Minutes of Evidence) on this matter included in the Report of the Inquiry on "Organic Farming and the European Union" undertaken by the House of Lords European Communities Committee (Sub-Committee D) in Session 1998–99 (HL Paper 93).

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of agricultural land is certified organic and in conversion in(a) Austria, (b) Denmark, (c) Finland, (d) France, (e) Sweden and (f) the United Kingdom.[127016]

  Mr. Morley
  In respect of organic areas in other EU member states, the hon. Member may like to refer to the table of statistics (page 49 of the Minutes of Evidence) on this matter included in the Report of the Inquiry on "Organic Farming and the European Union" undertaken by the House of Lords European Communities Committee (Sub-Committee D) in Session 1998-99 (HL Paper 93). Currently, around 3 per cent. of agricultural land in the UK is certified organic or in conversion.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer of 11 April 2000,Official Report,column 134W, on organic food, what additional financial assistance he will make available to farmers wishing to convert to organic farming, in addition to free conversion advice and on-farms visits by the Organic Conversion Information Service, before the Organic Farming Scheme reopens. [127025]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no plans to provide funding additional to the £12 million we already plan to spend in 2000–01 under the Organic Farming Scheme. The OFS will reopen to new applications early in 2001 following the review of the scheme, which is currently taking place.

  Floods
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress the Environment Agency has made in implementing its action plan in response to the independent report on the Easter 1998 floods; and if he will make a statement on the serious flooding in Todmorden and other areas of northern England in early June.[127295]

  Mr. Morley
  The Chairman of the Environment Agency has provided me with a report of progress up to the end of April 2000. Copies are being placed in the House Libraries.

  I am pleased to note that the major work programme set out in the Action Plan is almost complete.
  119W
  Key developments since the Agency's last report, which covered the period to end of December 1999, are as follows:
  Completion of the first phase of the telemetry works resulting in an additional 109 river level gauges, 16 river flow gauges and 65 rain gauges. These will enable conditions to be monitored during flooding and the calibration of flood models.
  A concordat between the Agency and the Meteorological Office has been signed to provide a framework for improved liaison and exchange of data.
  The Agency has completed its programme of visual inspections of its flood defences. Local authorities have inspected between 75 per cent. and 90 per cent. of their defences. The remainder are scheduled for completion by September in line with the Ministry's High Level Targets. Defences belonging to third parties have been inspected where identified through discussions with local authorities.
  Of the 1.6 million properties within the flood plain, one million addresses have been identified as high risk. This will enable flood risk information and other publicity material to be better targeted within the wider flood plain.
  A letter designed to raise awareness of the flood risk to caravan sites has been produced and distributed together with a request for site owners to make visitors aware of such risks and what they should do in the event of a flood.
  The Agency is providing guidelines to enable the severity and extent of flooding to be calculated on a consistent basis in order to better inform post event surveys.
  Two activities have yet to be fully completed by the Agency. These are the introduction of the new flood warning codes and revised management structures. The new flood warning codes are scheduled to be introduced on 12 September 2000. The introduction of the revised management structures will be phased during April to September 2000 in order to minimise the risk of disruption to services.

  The Agency's Easter Floods Project Team has now completed its work and is to be congratulated for its efforts in delivering the Action Plan and meeting the priorities I set out in striving for a seamless and integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response. The outstanding issues will be taken forward by the Agency's National Flood Warning Centre. Further activity in improving flood defence will be driven by the High Level Targets that the Government set last November.

  As regards the flooding earlier this month, I am acutely aware of the suffering experienced by many communities in northern England, and express the Government's sympathy to all those affected. I have asked the Chairman of the Environment Agency to provide a report on the flooding, by 21 July 2000, to include:

  the impact of the flooding;

  the causes of the flooding, including assessment of the contributory factors suggested by local members of the public;

  the effectiveness and timeliness of flood warnings;

  to what extent the effects of these floods were mitigated as a result of the measures taken to implement the Independent Report of the Easter 1998 floods; and

  what further lessons can be learned from these floods.

SCOTLAND

  Employment Service
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what performance targets have been set in respect of the employment service in Scotland's aims and objectives in 2000–01.[127225]

  Dr. Reid
  The aim of the Employment Service is to help people without jobs find work and employers to fill their vacancies. The Employment Service in Scotland makes a significant contribution to an efficient and flexible labour market and to meeting the Government's objectives of high and stable employment and growth, opportunity for all and social inclusion. Its main priority is to help people faced with particular difficulties in the labour market move from welfare and economic inactivity into sustainable employment. It is taking forward an ambitious programme of technological change and business improvement and is preparing for the merger with the Benefits Agency in 2001. I am announcing today the targets we have set for the Employment Service in Scotland for 2000–01, which relate to its four key objectives.

  Vision and Purpose

  The Employment Service in Scotland aims to make a major contribution to an efficient and flexible labour market and to the Government's objectives of high and stable levels of employment and growth, opportunity for all and social inclusion. The Employment Service in Scotland works closely with employers, and with its private, public and voluntary sector partners to provide a quality service for all people without a job and to promote employment opportunities for all who can work. It aims to attract a diverse range of vacancies and to fill those vacancies quickly by matching the right people and skills with the right jobs. Its main priority is to help individuals facing particular difficulty in the labour market to move from welfare and economic inactivity into sustainable employment. It does this through correct application of the JSA regime, delivery of the New Deals and the pilot ONE service, and through the provision of appropriate advice training and support. The Agency has achieved much over the past three years. The challenge and opportunity now facing it is to sustain continuous improvement in its services to jobseekers and employers and to make these services more accessible and relevant to customer needs, through effective use of modern technology and close working with a wide range of partners.

  Aim

  To help people without jobs find work and employers to fill their vacancies.

  Objective A

  To help all people without jobs, and particularly those on welfare and at a disadvantage in the labour market, to find and keep work by providing appropriate information, advice, training and support and by encouraging employers to open more opportunities to them.

  Targets

  1.To help 20,292 participants in the New Deals and the Glasgow Employment Zone, directly or in partnership with others.

  2.To help 11,200 people with disabilities into work, directly or in partnership with others.

  3.To help 33,335 disadvantaged jobseekers into work, directly or in partnership with others.

  4.To help 91,875 people from welfare into work, directly or in partnership with others.

  5.To help 169,325 jobless people into work, directly or in partnership with others.

  121W
  Objective B

  To ensure that the rights and relevant labour market responsibilities of people on JSA and other benefits are fulfilled, while helping to combat fraud and abuse of the benefits system.

  Target

  To ensure that the relevant labour market responsibilities of people on JSA are fulfilled in 94 per cent. of cases checked.

  Objective C

  To harness new technology, the pursuit of excellence and continuous improvement to deliver effective, efficient and accessible services to all people without jobs and to employers in Jobcentres and increasingly through other locations and means of communications.

  Targets

  1. To achieve a 91 per cent. customer service level for jobseekers.

  2. To introduce the Learning and Work Bank, new Labour Market System, touch screen kiosks and a single national telephone number for employers by March 2001.

  Objective D

  To deliver services to all ES customers in a way which respects individual differences, helps to overcome disadvantages due to ethnicity, gender, age or disability and achieves the best possible outcome for all.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the applications made by her Department to the Captial Modernisation Fund, giving the(a) intended recipients, (b) financial value and (c) outcome of each application.[126450]

  Clare Short
  DFID has made one application to the Capital Modernisation Fund, which was unsuccessful. This was to meet the costs of a proposed project to implement overseas Information Communications Technology centres to serve three African communities. The cost was estimated at £850,000.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) the total number of publications issued by her Department each year since 1997, (b) how many of each were printed and (c) the total cost of each publication.[126448]

  Clare Short
  As part of our commitment to openness, as well as to raising awareness and understanding of development issues, we now make publicly available all our strategy documents, including all country and

  Zimbabwe project completion reports received since 1 May 1997

  Project title

  Overall achievement

  Small-scale Irrigation Using Wells, Pilot Project

  Very good

  Zimbabwe Forestry Research and Institution Strengthening Project

  Satisfactory

  ATP Zimbabwe Iron and Steel Company (ZISCO)—completed February 1996

  Poor

  Insect Pest Management Project

  Satisfactory

  Wildlife Disease Epidemiology, Phase II Project

  Satisfactory

  National Measles Immunisation Days 1998 Project

  Satisfactory

  ATP: Supply of 300 Land Rovers1—completed June 1997

  Very good

  122W
  institutional strategy papers, as well as all major consultation papers and speeches. Our publishing output has therefore expanded considerably.

  Due to the disproportionate cost involved we are not able to provide the full level of details requested. However within the main categories we have produced:

  36 x Country Strategy Papers

  10 x Institutional Strategy Papers

  8 x Consultation Papers

  4 x Background briefings

  18 x Speech booklets

  10 x Issues of Development magazine.

  We also produced this year a publications catalogue which lists the majority of departmental publications produced since 1997, together with information on how to obtain copies. A copy of the catalogue has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Costs and print runs vary from a typical strategy paper (1,500 copies costing approximately £1,500) to Developments magazine (60,000 copies costing approximately £40,000 per issue, including distribution).

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) the cost and (b) number of copies printed of the Departmental report in (i) 1999 (ii) 1998 and (iii) 2000.[126443]

  Clare Short
  The total cost and number of copies printed of the Departmental Report are as follows:

  Year

  Cost(£)

  Copies printed

  1998

  33,672

  1,500

  1999

  65,051

  2,500

  2000

  98,000

  3,500

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) the number of project completion reports received from Zimbabwe since 1 May 1997 and (b) each project that has met its objective.[126452]

  Clare Short
  Since 1 May 1997, 10 Zimbabwe Project Completion Reports have been received. Of these, eight (80 per cent.) were judged to have either fully or largely achieved their objectives. The following table lists the reports received, indicates their overall achievement rating and describes the rating system used.
  123W

  Zimbabwe project completion reports received since 1 May 1997

  Project title

  Overall achievement

  Social Marketing of Mosquito Nets

  Satisfactory

  Children Under Stress

  Satisfactory

  Health Management Strengthening

  Fair

  1Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA), Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW), Posts and Telecommunications Corporation, Forestry Commission

  Performance Rating

  Very good: Fully achieved

  Satisfactory: Largely achieved despite a few shortcomings

  Fair: Only partially achieved, benefits and shortcomings finely balanced

  Poor: Very limited achievement, extensive shortcomings

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the police project in Zimbabwe funded by her Department will meet its objective as set out in her Department's Public Service Agreement.[126457]

  Clare Short
  A formal review of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) Organisational Development Project in October 1999 showed that it was successful in contributing to DFID's objectives as set out in the Public Service Agreement. The review concluded that the project was enabling organisational change to take place in ZRP to the benefit of the people of Zimbabwe, including the poorest.

  However, since February the ZRP has not enforced the law or upheld their own charter in relation to the attacks on the opposition and the land invasions. I have therefore decided that we will continue to support police activities which directly relate to confidence building with civil society, community based organisations and human rights groups. I have also suspended the supply of Land Rovers.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) pursuant to her answer of 12 June 2000,Official Report, columns 442–43W, on land acquisition in Zimbabwe, for what reasons she did not list (a) the number, acreage and cost of farms acquired, (b) the person to whom the farms were transferred and (c) the acreage which remains in production; [127092]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 12 June 2000, Official Report, columns 442–43W, on Zimbabwe, if she will place in the Library a copy of the (a) ODA evaluation conducted in 1988 and (b) 1993 study carried out by the Zimbabwean Comptroller and Auditor General.[127153]

  Clare Short
  As I have made clear, producing the information required would involve disproportionate cost.

  I am happy to place a copy of the 1988 ODA evaluation report in the House of Commons Library.

  The 1993 study on land reform was prepared by the office of the Zimbabwean Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Overseas Staff
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff and at what
  124W
  grades her Department employs in (a) Kazakhstan, (b) Uzbekistan, (c) Turkmenistan, (d) Tajikistan and (e)Kyrgyzstan.[126432]

  Clare Short
  Our programmes in these countries are small or non-existent and administered by Embassy staff, who are appointed by the FCO, and Staff Appointed In Country (SAIC). Details of staff and their grades for each country are as follows:

  (a) Kazakhstan

  DS9 (also covers programme in Kyrgyzstan)—70 per cent.

  DS7 (also covers programme in Kyrgyzstan)—15 per cent.

  SAIC Grade III—100 per cent.

  (b) Uzbekistan

  DS9–15 per cent.

  SAIC II—100 per cent.

  (c) Turkmenistan

  DS9–15 per cent.

  SAIC III—100 per cent.

  (d) Tajikistan

  No staff employed

  (e) Kyrgyzstan

  SAIC Grade II—100 per cent.

  SAIC Grade III—100 per cent.

  My Department also employs two Assistant Professional Officers on DFID rural livelihoods activities within a World bank project.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the total numbers of locally employed staff employed by her Department on(a)1 May 1997 and (b) 1 May 2000.[126445]

  Clare Short
  Figures for locally employed staff, now known as Staff Appointed in Country (SAIC), were not collected centrally in 1997. The figure for SAIC employed by the Department on 1 May 2000 was 410.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) the total number and (b) the total cost of job advertisements placed by her Department since 1 May 1997.[126446]
  125W
  Clare Short
  The total number of advertisements and their associated costs in each of the financial years since 1997 are as follows:

  Number of advertisements

  Costs (£)

  1997–98

  1313

  991,487

  1998–99

  1324

  1,025,832

  1999–2000

  326

  1,064,554

  2000–012

  40

  216,435

  Total

  1,003

  3,298,308

  1Detailed records of the number of advertisements are not held for these years. The figures are estimates based on the actual costs which are held and other known financial information.

  2To date

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's bilateral country programme aid for Sierra Leone is spent by the Government of Sierra Leone. [126458]

  Clare Short
  Currently, we are providing £10 million of programme aid to the Government of Sierra Leone for two purposes: to meet the Government's debt service obligations to the international financial institutions (IFIs); and to help pay the salaries of public sector teachers and health workers, and the police. The programme aid grant is administered on behalf of the Government of Sierra Leone by Crown Agents Financial Services Ltd. (CASL). CASL make current debt service payments direct to the IFIs on behalf of the Government of Sierra Leone as they become due. CASL reimburses the Government of Sierra Leone for prior expenditure on public sector salaries, and then carries out independent audit checks on payroll to guard against fraudulent claims.

  Ministerial Offices (Refurbishment)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the total cost of refurbishment and redecoration of her Department's ministerial offices since 1 May 1997.[126444]

  Clare Short
  Since 1997 our Department has spent the following amounts on the refurbishment of ministerial offices, which included replacement furniture and redecoration:

  1997: £7,978

  1998: £7,376

  1999: Nil.

  The figures for 2000 are not available yet.

  Know How Fund
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid her Department is providing to Eastern European countries under the Know How Fund; and if she will make a statement.[125229]

  Clare Short
  Over the last five years bilateral programmes of financial and technical assistance to Eastern European countries have totalled around £80 million a year. This assistance is channelled directly to Governments, and also to other institutions including local governments,126W
  non-governmental and civil society institutions. In addition the UK provided assistance through its contributions to multilateral institutions including the European Community and World Bank.

HEALTH

  Mead Webber Plant
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the nature is of the investigation the Meat Hygiene Service is planning into official veterinary surgeon supervision at the Mead Webber plant since 10 April; and what the timescale is for the investigation.[122042]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]:I understand from the Food Standards Agency that it is arranging for Mead Webber Ltd.'s complaints against the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) to be investigated independently. The investigation will be carried out as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Official Veterinary Surgeons have attended the Mead Webber abattoir since the Meat Hygiene Service took over responsibility for supervising it; and when Mr. Yogaratnam was appointed as OVS to the plant.[122056]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that, owing to a fire at a central Government filestore in 1998, the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) is unable to provide a categorical statement as to how many official veterinary surgeons (OVSs) have attended the Mead Webber abattoir since it took over responsibility for supervising these premises.

  However, available records show that 19 OVSs have attended the Mead Webber abattoir since the MHS took over responsibility for supervising it. Two of these have acted as the lead OVSs throughout this period, and as such have been responsible for the production of HAS scores for the plant. The other 17 have been used to provide locum cover.

  Mr. Yogaratnam was appointed as OVS to the Mead Webber plant in April 1997.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff from his Department were seconded to private sector companies in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to April 2000; and if he will list in each case the companies to which staff were sent, the names and ranks of the staff involved and the duration of the secondment.[123424]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: 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. Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: voluntary, education, health, public and private.
  127W
  Central records are held on the following secondments to the private sector which commenced in the years shown in the table.

  Date

  Number

  Details

  May 1997-April 1998

  2

  Howard Bloom, SCS, to Sema Group for 5 years

  Mr. W. Flynn, 1P4 to Dawn til Dusk Plc for 1 year

  May 1998-April 1999

  0

  No secondments, according to central records

  May 1999-April 2000

  1

  Robert Newton, IP3 to Federal Mogul for 6 months

  Accident and Emergency Units (Violence)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had, and with whom, about giving greater support to nursing staff working in accident and emergency units at NHS hospitals in the Greater London area to combat violence towards staff from the general public.[125767]

  Ms Stuart
  We are determined to ensure that National Health Service staff who spend their lives caring for others are not rewarded with intimidation and violence. Violence to staff is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

  "Working Together", the national human resources strategic framework for the NHS, sets out a number of HR targets and priorities for NHS employers. One of these concerns violence to staff. NHS employers have been asked to put in place systems for the recording and monitoring of violent incidents and to meet targets to reduce these by 20 per cent. by 2001 and 30 per cent. by 2003. Regional offices of the NHS Executive are asked to monitor progress against these targets. The London Regional Office through its performance management processes will be measuring progress against these targets in 2001.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 17 May 2000,Official Report, column 129W, on cosmetic surgery, what assessment he has made of the operation of regulations pertaining to advertising of cosmetic surgery; and what contact has taken place between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry on the same.[126320]

  Ms Stuart
  Our response to the Health Committee's Fifth Report on the regulation of private and other independent healthcare made it clear that we agreed that normal advertising controls alone may not be sufficient in the field of cosmetic surgery to ensure that the information that patients receive is of an acceptable standard. Officials in the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry worked together on this issue. The Care Standards Bill, as drafted, will allow us to introduce regulations covering standards of information given to patients in the independent sector, including promotional material.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has (1) to improve awareness among health care professionals of the risk factors and symptoms of diabetes; [126513]

  (2) to raise awareness of diabetes among the public, with particular reference to those in higher-risk groups. [126512]

  Mr. Denham
  We recognise the importance of raising awareness about the risk factors and symptoms of diabetes among both the public and health care professionals. Ministers have asked the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, which advises Government on all aspects of screening policy, to consider whether there is a case for the introduction of a targeted screening programme for Type 2 diabetes and, if so, how this could most effectively be achieved. The conclusions of the Committee will inform the work of the Expert Reference Group for the National Service Framework for diabetes in England.

  The aims of the diabetes National Service Framework are to improve health outcomes for people with diabetes by raising the quality of services and reducing variations between them. Its scope includes prevention, identification and management of diabetes and its complications.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what methods his Department will use to identify the estimated one million people living undiagnosed with diabetes;[126427]

  (2) what plans he has to move resources within the NHS from treating the complications of diabetes towards prevention and early diagnosis;[126397]

  (3) what plans he has to reduce the incidence of diabetic complications through prevention, early diagnosis and intensive management of the condition.[126418]

  Mr. Denham
  We recognise the importance of detecting diabetes as early as possible. Ministers have asked the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, which advises Government on all aspects of screening policy, to consider whether there is a case for the introduction of a targeted screening programme for Type 2 diabetes and, if so, how this could most effectively be achieved. The conclusions of the Committee will inform the work of the Expert Reference Group for the National Service Framework for Diabetes in England that we announced last year. The scope of the Framework includes prevention, identification and management of diabetes and its complications.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the costs to his Department of switching from the pound to the euro.[126399]

  Ms Stuart
  Should the United Kingdom decide to join the euro, the cost of the changeover would depend on the detailed approach taken to a changeover.

  Service Costs
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost of the(a) adolescent and

  129W
  child psychiatry service, (b) adolescent and child psychology service, (c) community psychiatric nursing service, (d) cervical cytology screening programme and (e) accident and emergency service in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 1999. [126824]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: Information on the costs of the community psychiatric nurses is not collected centrally. Information is not collected separately on the child and adolescent psychology service.

  The NHS Cervical Screening Programme began in 1988. The National Audit Office estimated in 1998 that the Programme costs around £132 million per year, around £34 per woman screened
  National Audit Office; The Performance of the NHS Cervical Screening Programme in England; Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General; HC678 Session 1997-98; 22 April 1998.
  The latest information on the cost of child and adolescent psychiatry service and the accident and emergency service is shown in the table.

  £

  Expenditure 1998–99

  Adolescent and child psychiatry,

  123,278,175

  Purchase of healthcare by HAs (A&E)

  780,245,000

  The adolescent and child psychiatry figure includes expenditure for in-patients, outpatients, royal college specialities and day care patients.

  Coronary Care Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the targets he has set health authorities for coronary care services.[126111]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease was published on 6 March. The Framework sets 12 national standards for improved prevention, diagnosis and treatment, and goals to secure fair access to high quality services over the 10-year period. This will include building up capacity, increasing the specialist workforce, improving prevention and creating faster access to services.

  Last October we announced a £50 million investment for the expansion of cardiac surgery. Last month we announced a further investment of £50 million, to be used to establish rapid access chest pain clinics, to speed up ambulance response times, to purchase defibrillators and to reduce waiting times for treatment.

  Regional offices are working with their health authorities and National Health Service trusts to ensure that these resources are targeted most effectively to increase the use of marginal capacity and to meet the greatest need within their region. A top priority for Dr. Roger Boyle, the National Director for Heart Disease, is to look with regional offices and with cardiac centres at the initial plans to ensure that we make the very best use of all the available skills and capacity.

  Correspondence
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for West Worcestershire will receive an answer to his letters of 23 March, 5 May and 2 June, relating to the case of his constituent, Ms Wendy Hands of Ashbrooke, Church Walk, Upton-upon-Severn, addressed to the Minister for Public Health.[126982]

  Yvette Cooper
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply to his letters as soon as possible.

  Adoption
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were adopted in the UK in 1999. [126267]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tom Cox dated 20 June 2000:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about adoption.

  The final numbers of adoptions recorded during 1999 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are not yet available; the corresponding number in Scotland was 488.

  The number of adoptions recorded in 1998 in the United Kingdom was 4,998.

WALES

  Education and Health Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much additional funding will be made available to(a) schools and (b) the Health Service in Wales as a result of specific measures announced in the Budget.[118188]

  Mr. Hanson
  There will be an increase of £49.6 million in the Welsh Block as a consequence of the increase in education funding for 2000–01 and of £1,299 million as a consequence of the increase in health funding for 2000–01 to 2003–04, £99 million of which will fall in 2000–01. The allocation of these funds is entirely a matter for the Assembly.

  The Assembly Finance Secretary has announced allocations of £20.6 million to schools delegated budgets to raise standards of teaching and learning; £26.8 million for capital investments in schools; £2.2 million for teacher recruitment measures; and £40 million for joint working between NHS, Social Services, voluntary organisations and others to deal with all-year emergency pressures on the NHS and for the NHS to reduce waiting times. She has said that the rest of the increase will be allocated to health; discussions are ongoing on how best to allocate it to other identified priority areas.

  Drugs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the
  131W
  First Secretary concerning the impact of (a) hard and (b) soft drugs upon Deeside; and if he will make a statement.[126518]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with the First Secretary and other Assembly Secretaries about a range of topics including drug abuse.

  On 25 May, Jane Hutt, the Assembly Secretary for Health and Social Services, launched "Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A Partnership Approach", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. New developments in North Wales include the appointment by the Community Drug and Alcohol Service of two young people's workers and a specialist midwife.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the provision of improved rural bus services; and if he will make a statement.[126973]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Secretary on a range of topics including rural bus services.

  I am pleased that the Assembly has decided to continue the Bus Subsidy Grant scheme in the current financial year. Of the £5 million budget, £3 million is reserved solely for boosting the number and range of services in rural areas. The balance is available for use at local authorities' discretion—which can include yet further support to rural services. These figures are in addition to approximately £10 million a year which authorities already spend on subsidising non-commercial local bus services throughout their areas.

  Rural Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning new policies to assist rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.[126972]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Secretary about a range of matters including the needs of rural Wales.

  RN exercises cancelled due to budgetary reasons—FY 1999–2000

  Serial/name of exercise

  Dates

  1 FLOTEX (Flotilla Exercise)

  November 1999

  2 CADENCE BRAKE (Royal Marine winter driving training in Norway (precursor to serial 4))

  November 1999

  3 ASWEX 2000 (Ship, Submarine, Helicopter Anti-submarine warfare exercise)

  January 2000

  4 Royal Marine Winter Deployment (Arctic warfare training in (Norway)

  January 2000

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current year's budget and staff establishment of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre. [125201]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]: The cash allocation for Financial Year 2000–01 is £18.448 million. The Defence Intelligence and Security Centre's current staff establishment is as follows:
  132W
  The Assembly is addressing the specific needs of rural Wales and its communities in the development of several new policies and programmes. These include the Communities First programme; Local Regeneration Fund; Objective 1 Single Programming Document; Objective 2 and Transitional Funding for many parts of the rural East; and the Rural Development Plan for Wales.

DEFENCE

  No-smoking Policy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness of his Department' s no-smoking policy and (b) the proportion of his Department's offices that do not allow smoking.[125158]

  Dr. Moonie
  My Department's aim, in line with wider Government policy, is to create a non-smoking working environment in so far as this reflects the wishes of staff. Detailed guidance on this policy is promulgated in the "Departmental Health and Safety Handbook, Joint Service Publication 375", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The implementation of departmental policy on smoking, in common with other health and safety matters, is a local line management responsibility, and consequently, no central record is held on the proportion of the Department's offices that do not allow smoking. This information could, therefore, be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Armed Forces Exercises
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) Army, (b) Navy, (c) RAF and (d) TA exercises cancelled for budgetary reasons in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01.[125707]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following table sets out the Royal Navy exercises cancelled for budgetary reasons in the specified period.

  No Army, RAF or TA exercises have been cancelled for budgetary reasons during 1999–2000.

  No Navy, Army, RAF or TA exercises planned to take place during financial year 2000–01 have been cancelled (or are expected to be cancelled) for budgetary reasons.

  Number

  Army Officers

  41

  Army Solders

  166

  Navy Officers

  9

  Navy Rating

  28

  RAF Officer

  14

  RAF Airmen

  49

  Civilian Non Industrial

  122

  Civilian Industrial

  25

  Total

  454

  BOWMAN Project
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the cost has been to date of the BOWMAN project;[125783]

  (2) what alternatives to the BOWMAN project he has (a) considered and (b) evaluated; and when he will make a decision on the future of the project.[125784]

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

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Robert Key, dated 20 June 2000:

  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the BOWMAN communication project. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

  As part of the BOWMAN project, we have examined a number of alternative technical options, and have reviewed whether the basic approach to BOWMAN remains valid in the light of rapid developments in the mobile communications field. The analysis demonstrates that BOWMAN can be a robust solution to the military requirement. Our primary effort has been directed to working with Archer Communications Systems Limited (ACSL), the nominated BOWMAN contractor, to establish whether an adequately de-risked solution can be provided on taut contractual terms. In parallel, study contracts were placed earlier this year with Computing Devices Canada and Thomson CSF to ascertain whether suitable alternatives to the current ACSL solution for BOWMAN might be available. These studies have reported and are being evaluated.

  A decision on the way ahead for BOWMAN is expected later this Summer. At 31 March 2000, expenditure on BOWMAN which included work that would be relevant to solutions other than that being developed by ACSL, was some £260M at outturn prices.

  DERA Public-private Partnership
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the inclusion of DERA West Freugh in the DERA public-private partnership.[125950]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 17 April 2000,Official Report, columns 366–67W, to my hon. Friend for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), which outlined our proposals for the DERA public private partnership. These are described in more detail in the consultation document, a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House and on the internet at www.mod.uk/commercial/ppp/dera/.
  Under current proposals, we envisage that the capabilities provided by West Freugh will form part of the NewDERA company. It is, therefore, likely that West Freugh would transfer to the private sector.

  Our proposals are designated to secure a long-term future for both NewDERA and those elements to be retained within the Ministry of Defence. The new freedoms proposed for NewDERA will open up a range of commercial opportunities not previously available and help secure jobs in the longer term.

  No final decisions on the PPP will be taken until all the inputs received during the consultation exercise, which ended on 9 June, have been fully analysed. We hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the way ahead for DERA before the summer recess.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons army doctors during the recent deployment in Sierra Leone and Senegal did not carry sufficient supplies of(a) mefloquine and (b) savarine; and if he will make a statement.[126055]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 15 June 20001: The normal anti-malarial drugs for Sierra Leone are mefloquine, or chloroquine and proguanil tablets for aircrew. Supplies of these drugs were readily available. The reasons why some personnel deployed to Sierra Leone without supplies of mefloquine are being investigated by the Ministry of Defence. The French anti-malarial drug savarine, which is a combination of chloroquine and proguanil, was acquired locally as an interim measure and distributed within 24 hours of personnel arriving in theatre. Personnel who had deployed without supplies of mefloquine were transferred to mefloquine within four days of arrival in theatre.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on medical preparedness of(a) the spearhead battalions of the Rapid Reaction Corps and (b) other armed forces personnel in all three Services, with particular reference to Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement.[126056]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 15 June 2000]: It is the Ministry of Defence's policy that all Service personnel should be up to date with routine vaccinations and that members of the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces should be up to date with certain additional vaccinations, depending on their degree of readiness. Personnel deploying to high risk areas should receive further vaccinations specific to the risks they face. Other aspects of medical preparedness will depend on the role of the deploying forces and the geographical location to which they are deploying.

  Service Personnel (Medical Records)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are kept(a) centrally, (b) in theatre and (c) on individual service personnel relating to (i) inoculations, (ii) prophylactic drugs and (iii) other medications. [126053]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 15 June 2000]: Details of inoculations, prescribed prophylactic drugs and other medications are recorded in individuals' personal medical records known as Form F Med 4. These records are normally held by the individuals' parent units. Information may also be held on medical centre computer systems. Any medical treatment administered to personnel in-theatre is recorded for each individual in an operational medical record (Form F Med 965). This information is incorporated into F Med 4s on return. In addition, the Army records the nature and date of vaccinations given to individuals centrally on personnel information systems. A central record has been maintained on vaccinations given to personnel while deployed on Operation Palliser.

  Land (Caversfield)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will enforce the agreement between the Ministry of Defence and Hodge (Eastern) Ltd. on recreational land at Caversfield in Oxfordshire.[126663]
  135W
  Dr. Moonie
  The former Ministry of Defence land at Caversfield, sold to Hodge (Eastern) Limited in December 1996, included two areas of 'bare' land, which the clawback clause in the transfer refers to as open space either for playing fields or agricultural purposes.
  There has been no breach of the agreement between the Ministry of Defence and Hodge (Eastern) Limited in relation to this open land.

  RAF Feltwell
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a Minister from his Department last visited RAF Feltwell.[126648]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: Since 1 May 1997 no Minister of this Department has visited RAF Feltwell.

  Advertising
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by his Department on advertising in each year since May 1997.[125695]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not required in the requested format, for internal MOD management purposes and, as a result, is not collected centrally. It could, therefore, be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, related cost information is as set out.

  £million

  Financial year

  PR Marketing and business support services

  Expenditure by the Chief of Public Relations1

  1997–98

  0.502

  2.267

  1998–99

  0.844

  2.328

  1999–2000

  1.114

  2.741

  1Excluding staff salaries or associated costs

  Security
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of DA-Notice No. 4, how many(a) sites and (b) individuals have been identified where disclosure of locations and addresses would not be in the public interest.[126876]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are under 10 sites where disclosure of location would not be in the public interest. The locations of other sites covered by DA-Notice No. 4 are not concealed, although their security arrangements are classified.

  Each Ministry involved in security and counter-terrorist measures holds its own list of high threat personnel addresses. That for the Ministry of Defence contains those of 22 serving military personnel, 46 retired military personnel, three civil servants and four Ministers.

  Munitions Stocks
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps have been taken to restore stocks of precision guided and non-precision guided munitions back to pre-operation levels following Operation Allied Force; and if he will make a statement;[124207]
  136W
  (2) what contracts have been placed to replace (a) Paveway II, (b) Paveway III, (c) RBL 755, (d) 10001b bomb, (e) Alarm and (f) TLAM expended during operations in Kosovo, listing in each case the (i) company involved, (ii) estimated date of delivery, (iii) value of the contract and (iv) cost per unit; and if he will make a statement. [124221]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 June 2000] [pursuant to his reply, 13 June 2000, c. 559–60W]: The unit price of Paveway II is some £18,000 (VAT exclusive) and not £8,000 as previously stated.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) special advisers and (b) officials are authorised to respond to correspondence on his behalf.[126506]

  The Prime Minister
  The nature and origin of correspondence will determine whether a Minister, official or special adviser replies.

  Press Contacts
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce a code for Ministers and special advisers on contacts with the Press.[126502]

  The Prime Minister
  Guidance for Ministers on contacts with the Press is set out in the "Ministerial Code". Guidance for all civil servants, including special advisers, on contacts with the Press is set out in "Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service".

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what methods are used to resolve conflicts of interest within the terms and conditions of employment in the case of special advisers invested with power to direct civil servants.[126297]

  The Prime Minister
  Advice on handling conflicts of interests for all civil servants is set out in the "Civil Service Management Code". For Special Advisers, this is supplemented by guidance set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers".

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the visits undertaken to the United States by(a) Ministers and (b) special advisers since 1 May 1997.[126549]

  The Prime Minister
  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally. A list of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas costing more than £500, and information on spend by all Ministers on travel overseas for the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 1999 was placed in the Library of the House on 17 June 1999,Official Report, columns 196–97W. This included the costs of accompanying special advisers. A similar list and information on spend for the financial year 1999–2000 is currently being assembled and will be published shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Holocaust Survivors
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress with his discussions with the banking industry concerning charges levied on holocaust survivors in respect of conversion of pensions from deutschmarks to sterling.[122449]

  Mr. Byers
  Earlier this year I approached a number of major banks about their charging policy in respect of regular payments made by the German Government to survivors of the Holocaust living in the UK.

  I am pleased that all the major banks have agreed to waive their charges relating to holocaust payments in future. The Department of Trade and Industry will seek the help of the German authorities to identify those who might benefit from this arrangement, but in the meantime potential beneficiaries should make themselves known to one of the following banks: Bank of Scotland; Barclays; HSBC; Lloyds TSB and Royal Bank of Scotland/National Westminster.

  These banks have agreed to waive future charges. Because of the large number of other payments the banks process, those who receive Holocaust-related payments from the German Government through a bank account should contact one of these banks to benefit from this new arrangement.

  Distance Selling
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the(a) organisations and companies consulted in 1998–99 as part of the consultation on the EU directive on distance selling and (b) those organisations and companies that responded to this consultation.[125951]

  Dr. Howells
  Consultations on the implementation of the Directive 97/7/EC on the Protection of Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts (the Distance Selling Directive) were conducted in June 1998 and November 1999. A total of 576 organisations, including consumer and business organisations, individual businesses, and local authority trading standards departments, were consulted. In addition, there have been over 350 downloadings of the second consultation document from the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/CACP/ca/distance/

  A list of the organisations, businesses and individuals consulted in 1998–99 and those that responded to this consultation has been made available for inspection in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the organisations and companies consulted in 1998–99 as part of the consultation on the EU directive on distance selling, indicating the organisations and companies that responded to the consultation.[126894]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him today to his question above.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he defines the difference between responsible risk takers and culpable bankrupts for the purpose of implementing the recommendations of the Insolvency Working Party; and if he will estimate the proportion of each.[126035]

  Dr. Howells
  I am satisfied that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between individuals who are dishonest or whose conduct with regard to their creditors is irresponsible and those whose use of credit and treatment of their creditors is conscientious and above board. Examples of irresponsible conduct would be an individual continuing to trade and incur credit at a time when he or she knew themselves to be insolvent; or an individual consumer obtaining credit without any regard to his ability to repay the debts incurred. Information available from Official Receivers indicates that the very great majority of individuals subject to bankruptcy are neither dishonest nor irresponsible.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what basis he estimates that seven to 12 per cent. of bankrupts are culpable; and what relationship these percentages have to the findings of the Insolvency Service's Study of Business Failures in January and February 1999. [126040]

  Dr. Howells
  An estimate of the number of bankrupts who may have been guilty of misconduct in relation to their creditors can be made by reference to the number of bankrupts reported by Official Receivers as having, prima facie, committed criminal offences; the number of bankrupts identified by Official Receivers as having committed criminal offences but in respect of whose affairs further investigation or prosecution would not, in the public interest, be warranted; and information obtained from Official Receivers as in their survey of Business Failures.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) individuals and (b) firms are regulated by each of the bodies responsible for regulating the insolvency industry. [126484]

  Dr. Howells
  The Insolvency authorising bodies are responsible for the authorisation of individuals as insolvency practitioners. Firms cannot be authorised. The numbers of individuals concerned are:

  Number

  The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

  155

  Insolvency Practitioners Association

  330

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  784

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland

  68

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

  156

  The Law Society

  196

  The Law Society of Scotland

  20

  The Secretary of State

  125

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department has taken over the report issued by Mr. Justice Ferris and his proposals for setting the fees of insolvency practitioners. [126486]

  Dr. Howells
  Following receipt of the first report by Mr. Justice Ferris, The Association of Business Recovery Professionals (formerly the Society of Practitioners of
  139W
  Insolvency) issued preliminary guidance to its members on the possible format of application for fee approval. Further guidance is awaiting publication of the final report of the Ferns Working Party and the issue of a revised Statement of Insolvency Practice on remuneration of office holders. My Department is represented on the Working Party and is continuing to monitor the position.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what inquiries his Department has made into(a) receiverships and (b) liquidations started more than 10 years ago but still not finalised; and how many liquidators come into this category. [126479]

  Dr. Howells
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints about the conduct of the insolvency practitioners have been lodged with each of the bodies responsible for regulating the insolvency industry since 1997.[126485]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of complaints about insolvency practitioners received between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 1999 for each authorising body is as follows:

  Number

  Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

  118

  Insolvency Practitioners Association

  347

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  597

  Institute of Charted Accountants in Ireland

  23

  Institute of Charted Accountants in Scotland

  115

  The Law Society

  7

  The Law Society of Scotland

  0

  The Secretary of State

  132

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set up an independent investigation into the administration and liquidation of(a) J. S. Bass & Co. Limited and (b) Exchange Travel.[126476]

  Dr. Howells
  No. However, as I indicated in my recent letter to my hon. Friend, officials are in touch with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales concerning the handling of the complaint about the insolvency practitioners in the Bass case.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place the comments received on the Insolvency Working Party's interim and final reports in the Library.[126482]

  Dr. Howells
  The Insolvency Regulation Working Party was established by the insolvency authorising bodies and comments made to it were a matter for the Working Party and not for Ministers.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the receiverships and liquidations begun more than 20 years ago and still not finalised.[126480]

  Dr. Howells
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  140W
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation under which the receivers and liquidators will be required to owe a duty of care to all the stakeholders affected by their decisions.[126481]

  Dr. Howells
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department has taken over the receivership of Heritage plc.[126490]

  Dr. Howells
  The complaint about the receivers of Heritage plc was a matter for the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the authorising body of the practitioners concerned. The Institute found there to be no prima facie case of misconduct.

  In view of continuing concerns expressed by the complainant, officials have been in touch with the Institute and are in the process of carrying out a review of the handling of the complaint.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the(a) Atlantic Computers, (b) Coloroll, (c) Barlow Clowes and (d) Stone Platt receiverships and liquidations began; when they were finalised; what fees have been collected by the insolvency practitioners; and if he will make a statement.[126478]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not immediately available. I will write to my hon. Friend about this matter and place a copy of that letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for expanding the supply of insolvency practitioners.[126489]

  Dr. Howells
  The requirements to be fit and proper and to meet certain criteria as to education, practical training and experience are designed to ensure that authorisation will only be granted to individuals who can demonstrate a high standard of integrity and professionalism.

  There are presently 1,834 authorised insolvency practitioners of whom some 1,270 are currently understood to take appointments.

  The Insolvency Bill presently before Parliament provides for the Secretary of State to have the additional power to recognise a body so that it may authorise individuals to take appointments but only in the capacity of nominee or supervisor of a voluntary arrangement.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action(a) he and (b) the Recognised Professional Bodies have taken against the insolvency practitioners whose actions were highlighted in Channel 4's "Dispatches" programme broadcast on 19 June 1996.[126477]

  Dr. Howells
  The relevant Recognised Professional Bodies were made aware of the programme at the time and I have no reason to doubt that any matters arising which related to the conduct of authorised insolvency practitioners would have been fully and thoroughly investigated by the bodies concerned.

  Auditors
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will propose legislation which will prevent auditors acting as consultants for their audit clients.[126487]

  Dr. Howells
  We have no plans to do so.

  It is central to the role of the company auditor that he or she is independent in mind and in appearance. The provision of non-audit services to audit clients can call into question the auditor's independence of the entities being reported on. It will be appropriate for the new Ethics Standards Board, when it is established as part of the new independent Framework of Regulation for the accountancy profession, to look at the ethical rules and guidance in this area.

  The law in the UK already requires that the bodies responsible for supervising the work of company auditors have adequate rules to ensure that the auditor does not have an interest likely to conflict with the proper conduct of the audit. The current professional guidance, which forms part of those rules, acknowledges that the provision of non-audit services may give rise to threats to independence. The auditor is required to put in place appropriate safeguards and to be able to demonstrate that he or she has reasonably concluded that those safeguards are adequate. Otherwise the auditor either cannot take on the audit engagement or cannot provide the non-audit service.

  Science Enterprise Challenge
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the outcome of the additional round of Science Enterprise Challenge will be announced. [126744]

  Mr. Byers
  I have today announced that four additional enterprise centres are to be established at the universities of Durham, Oxford, Ulster and Warwick.

  These centres will join the existing network of eight centres I announced in September 1999. These centres will foster the commercialisation of research and new ideas, will help stimulate scientific entrepreneurialism and will incorporate the teaching of enterprise into science and engineering curricula in universities.

  The quality of the proposals demonstrates the wealth of talent and creativity within our science and engineering community, and the enthusiasm for innovative thinking and entrepreneurialism.

  I very much look forward to seeing these centres develop. I am confident that they will make a significant contribution to the enterprise and innovation culture in the UK.

  Robert Maxwell
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) the date when the inspectors were appointed to investigate the affairs of the business dealings of the late Robert Maxwell, (b) the cost of the investigation to date, (c) the likely date of publication, (d) representations received from any party which objects to the publication of the inspectors' report and (e) the reasons for the delay in publishing the report.[126488]
  142W
  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 416W. The cost to date of the inspection into the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers is £7,676,952. The inspectors have not yet reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am not aware that any representations have been received which object to the publication of the inspectors' report.

  Personal Care Occupations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those occupations which involve grooming and other aspects of personal care which are not regulated.[126415]

  Dr. Howells
  The grooming and personal care occupations cover a number of different industries, all of which are governed by general legislation on the supply of goods and services. There are no sector specific regulations.

  Following publication of the Consumer White Paper "Modern markets: confident consumers", we continue to encourage sectors to develop effective codes of practice. These can raise standards of consumer protection and help inform consumers of the level of service they can expect and of methods of redress should the service not meet their expectations.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the letter of warning from the European Commission regarding the incorrect transposition of the Parental Leave Directive and the response from the Government to this letter.[126286]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Correspondence between the European Commission and the UK Government on the implementation of the Parental Leave Directive is confidential.

  ECGD (Sudan)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been received from United Kingdom companies for ECGD cover concerned with projects relating to the Sudan oil industry in each of the last three years.[126659]

  Mr. Caborn
  One application has been received in 1997 but no ECGD cover was provided.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if Sudan is accepted for ECGD cover. [126660]

  Mr. Caborn
  No.

  Corruption and Bribery
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the British companies which have been banned from World bank contracts because of fraud and corruption in the last five years.[127076]
  143W
  Mr. Caborn
  The companies and individuals debarred by the World bank for infringing its procurement guidelines and which are listed on the World bank's website are as follows:

  Pradeep S. Nair of London, United Kingdom

  Crown Sakura Ltd. of London, United Kingdom

  Chase Berkeley Cavendish Ltd. of London, United Kingdom

  Amani B. P. Ltd. of London, United Kingdom

  Case Technology Ltd. of Watford, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom

  Labh Singh Gill of Warwickshire, United Kingdom

  Pradeep Menon of London, United Kingdom

  Shivshanker Pre Nair of London, United Kingdom

  Agricultural Development Services Ltd. of London, United Kingdom

  Ana Exports Ltd. of London, United Kingdom

  Consultants for International Development plc of London, United Kingdom

  Cord Construction Ltd. of Isle of Man, United Kingdom

  Cybertek International of London, United Kingdom

  Drill Technologies & Co. of London, United Kingdom

  Economic Consulting Group of London, United Kingdom

  Emkay Enterprises Ltd. of London, United Kingdom

  Engineering Projects International of London, United Kingdom

  First Fuji Ltd. of Isle of Man, United Kingdom

  Flair Developments Ltd. of Isle of Man, United Kingdom

  Infotek & Co. of London, United Kingdom

  International Development Projects Services of London, United Kingdom

  Inter-Russ Ltd. of Isle of Man, United Kingdom

  Labh Universal of Coventry, United Kingdom

  Medirite Group Ltd. of Middlesex, United Kingdom

  Mirna International of Berkshire, United Kingdom

  Norsk-Agro Ltd. of London, United Kingdom

  Resource Development Ltd. of Isle of Man, United Kingdom

  Ribalco International of Berkshire, United Kingdom

  Shivind Ltd. of Isle of Man, United Kingdom

  Thrust Technologies & Co. of London, United Kingdom

  Times International & Co. of London, United Kingdom

  United Basel Ltd. of Isle of Man, United Kingdom

  West End Associates Ltd. of Isle of Man, United Kingdom

  Agric-Canada of United Kingdom

  Overseas Project Services Ltd. of United Kingdom.

  It is understood that a number of the companies and individuals dispute the findings which led to the debarments.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many British companies have been prosecuted in the UK for bribing foreign officials in the last five years. [127077]

  Mr. Caborn
  Official records do not distinguish between prosecutions of companies or individuals; nor do they distinguish between prosecutions in respect of domestic or foreign officials. The figures for prosecutions 144W
  in England and Wales under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916 for the last five years for which figures are currently available are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1993

  35

  1994

  46

  1995

  60

  1996

  60

  1997

  58

  Advertising Standards Authority
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Advertising Standards Authority.[126329]

  Dr. Howells
  As we stated in the White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" (Cm 4410 July 1999), the Government strongly support the self-regulatory controls on advertising in the UK run by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). We remain of the view that the ASA is a good example of effective self-regulation, which has succeeded in maintaining standards in the field of advertising.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many referrals the OFT has received from the Advertising Standards Authority since 1 May 1997.[126330]

  Dr. Howells
  The Office of Fair Trading report having received three cases referred for consideration under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 by the Advertising Standards Authority since 1 May 1997.

  Coal Industry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made with the Government's application to the European Commission for approval of financial support to the coal mining industry; and if he will make a statement.[127024]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are consulting widely among producers and users of coal and other interested parties on the proposed structure of the scheme. My officials are engaged in preliminary discussions with the European Commission and we hope to be in a position to formally notify the Commission soon on our proposals to pay aid.

  Advertising
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent by his Department on advertising in each year since May 1997.[125693]

  Mr. Byers
  Expenditure on advertising by the DTI, which was all placed through the Central Office of Information, was as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  12,373,637

  1998–99

  15,543,938

  1999–2000

  11,714,573

  1Excluding VAT

  Public Holidays
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to declare a public holiday to commemorate(a)in 2002, the 50th anniversary of the accession to the throne of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and (b)in 2003, the 50th anniversary of her coronation; and what dates have been selected. [126653]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  A bank holiday in 2002 to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee, and the date on which such a holiday might be held, is under consideration and will be the subject of appropriate consultations. I have no plans for any additional bank holidays in 2003.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Equal Treatment Directive
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the responses which he received from organisations outside Government to his consultation about the proposed EC Directive on implementing the equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.[126535]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The consultation was conducted at a series of five meetings with organisations outside government which were held between publication of the draft by the Commission in November 1999 and political agreement at Council in June 2000. This was due to negotiations in Brussels being conducted in closed Working Group sessions, and are, therefore, being unable to provide later versions of the text of the Directive outside government in writing.

  Drivers (Red Lights)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers have been(a) prosecuted for and (b) convicted of driving through a red traffic light in each of the last five years.[126248]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following table gives the available information:

  Numbers of prosecutions and convictions for failing to comply with traffic signals, England and Wales, 1993 to 1997

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1993

  35,306

  30,061

  1994

  29,152

  24,266

  1995

  29,695

  24,480

  1996

  30,220

  25,307

  1997

  27,915

  23,553

  Note:

  Figures for later years are not yet available

  The majority of these offences are dealt with by the issue of fixed penalty notices.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the 146W
  letter, dated 25 April, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. T. Khan. [126289]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 20 June.

  Cycling on Pavements
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with police forces about the enforcement and value of the prohibition of cycling on pavements.[126409]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Cycling on the pavement is a long-established offence under Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835. The Government's most recent consultation with the police on this subject was on the introduction of a fixed penalty offence for cycling on the pavement. The change was supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  The Home Office consultation exercise in 1996 on seven proposed new fixed penalty offences, including cycling on the pavement, revealed substantial public concern about inconsiderate and irresponsible cycling on the pavement in England and Wales, which particularly affected the elderly and disabled. The new fixed penalty offence allows the police to deal more simply and directly with particular local problems as they arise.

  Bribery
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make bribery carried out overseas by UK citizens and companies a criminal offence; and if he will make a statement.[127075]

  Mr. Straw
  Copies of the discussion paper setting out the Government's proposals for the reform of the law of corruption are now available in the Library and in the Vote Office.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Kosovan refugees in the UK applied for leave to remain in the last 12 months; and what percentage of such applications(a) were granted, (b) were refused and (c) are under consideration.[127088]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since March 2000, of those who arrived from Kosovo under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Humanitarian Evacuation Programme, 656 principal applicants have sought an extension of exceptional leave to enter, 374 have applied for asylum and 150 have applied for both exceptional leave and asylum. Five per cent. of the applications have been granted, 33 per cent. refused and 62 per cent. are outstanding.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in support of allowing Kosovan refugees to remain in the United Kingdom until such time as they feel able to return. [127089]

  Mrs. Roche
  Ministers and officials have corresponded with and have had regular meetings with various non-Governmental organisations involved with the support of the Kosovan evacuees since they came to the United Kingdom last year.
  147W
  Kosovan Albanians who were evacuated to the United Kingdom under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme (HEP) between 25 April and 25 June 1999 were granted 12 months' leave to enter. As agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) at the outset of the evacuation process, protection was afforded on a temporary basis only. It was made clear at the time and subsequently that the leave of the evacuated Kosovans would not be extended and that they would be expected to return to Kosovo as soon as it was safe to do so.

  UNHCR judge that it is now safe for the majority of Kosovan Albanians to return to Kosovo and this has been exemplified by the one million Kosovans who have voluntarily chosen to return since July 1999.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Kosovan refugees were returned to Kosovo on each day between 1 and 16 June. [127087]

  Mrs. Roche
  All of the 469 Kosovans who arrived in the United Kingdom under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Humanitarian Evacuation Programme and the 69 who arrived in the United Kingdom independently, returned to Kosovo on the permanent voluntary return programme between 1 and 16 June. The table shows the number of Kosovans returning permanently on each flight between 1 and 16 June.

  Date

  Humanitarian evacuation programme

  Independent arrivals

  1 June

  120

  11

  9 June

  112

  15

  15 June

  93

  31

  16 June

  144

  12

  Total

  469

  69

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the nature of the representations he has received recently from business interests in respect of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. [126305]

  Mr. Straw
  I have received various representations from business interests since the introduction of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill to the House of Commons on 9 February this year. They have supported the broad aims of the Bill. Most have pressed for changes to minimise the uncertainty over the impact of Clause 12 (maintenance of a reasonable intercept capability). The Clause has been amended in response to some of these representations. The Alliance for Electronic Business pressed for affirmative resolution for the order under Clause 12. This was provided by amendment at Commons Report. We have also amended the Bill to require the Secretary of State to meet the marginal costs of interception. Some businesses have also asked for reassurances which have been given as to how we intend the regime to work. Others are pressing us about the costs of maintaining a reasonable intercept capability on the internet.
  148W
  Business interests have also pressed for some changes to Part III of the Bill in relation to access to encryption keys. Changes have been made to Part III in response to these representations. For example, the Bill has been amended to say that keys can be accessed only "in special circumstances" as a direct response to industry representations. Amendments designed to clarify what should be contained in a decryption notice and to remove the Directors' liability in respect of Part III of the Bill were also a response to industry representations.

  Burns Committee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an investigation into the source of the leak of the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs; and if he will make a statement. [126303]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am not aware of a leak of the findings of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with Lord Burns following the publication of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs; and if he will make a statement. [126304]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were(a) granted unamended, (b) granted in amended form and (c) rejected in the last year for which figures are available. [126332]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not recorded centrally.

  I am advised that the vast majority of project licence applications are revised during negotiations with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate or have conditions added to either restrict or qualify the authorities sought. Proposals which are outside the requirements of the law or not good science will rarely become formal applications (and hence rejections) because most potential applicants seek and take the advice of inspectors at an early stage.

  Paragraph 13 of Appendix B of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals (Great Britain) 1998 provides figures for the number of project licences granted and revoked during 1998 and how many were in force on 31 December 1998. A total of 1,104 project licences were granted in 1998. This is also shown subdivided into severity bandings.

  Appendix C of the 1998 Statistics contains 10 typical examples of the value added to licence applications by the Inspectorate' s assessment process.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with Huntingdon Life Sciences; and if he will make a statement. [126264]
  149W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I visited Huntingdon Life Sciences on 8 June 2000 in connection with my responsibilities under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. During my visit I talked to managers and staff about the campaign of harassment they have experienced from animal rights extremists over recent months. This included meeting two women who had their cars set on fire outside their homes. While it is a long-standing tradition in this country that individuals are free to express their views peacefully, people also have a right to carry out their lawful business without fear of intimidation and violence. The Government unreservedly condemn those who use such repellent tactics and wholeheartedly support the police in their continuing efforts to combat those who use them.

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the additional police officers announced as part of the Crime Fighting Fund are(a) in service and (b) coming into service in each of the next eight quarters (i) nationally and (ii) in Merseyside. [127073]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All forces in England and Wales have been asked to profile their planned recruitment over the 12 months of 2000-01. On the basis of the force profiles, the table shows the number of officers recruited, or planned to be recruited, that will be deemed to be Crime Fighting Fund officers.

  The total allocation of Crime Fighting Fund officers for 2000–01 is 3,000. Forces have, so far, profiled the recruitment of 2,672 of the 3,000. Forces will have the opportunity to re-profile their recruitment up to the maximum of 3,000 Crime Fighting Fund officers as the year progresses. The number of deemed Crime Fighting Fund officers may rise or fall if actual recruitment does not match profiled recruitment or if the profile changes.

  Forces have not yet been asked to profile recruitment for 2001–02. The table shows the allocation of Crime Fighting Fund officers for 2001–02 as a whole.

  England and Wales

  Merseyside

  1 April to 30 June 2000

  679

  28

  1 July to 30 September 2000

  616

  26

  1 October to 31 December 2000

  886

  42

  1 January to 31 March 2001

  491

  9

  Sub-Total 2001–02

  2,672

  105

  Allocation for 2001–02

  2,000

  96

  Total for 2000–01 and 2001–02

  4,672

  201

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of exempting volunteers from fees for(a) criminal conviction certificates, (b) criminal record certificates and (c) enhanced criminal record certificates; [126991]

  (2) what his latest estimate is of the fee to be charged for (a) criminal conviction certificates, (b) criminal record certificates and (c) enhanced criminal record certificates; [126992]
  150W
  (3) what plans he has to review his policy on the liability of volunteers for fees for criminal conviction certificates, criminal record certificates and enhanced criminal record certificates; [126993]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the number of volunteers each year who will require (a) criminal conviction certificates, (b) criminal record certificates and (c) enhanced criminal record certificates once the Criminal Records Bureau is in operation; [126990]

  (5) what estimate he has made of (a) the start-up costs and (b) the first year's operating costs of the Criminal Records Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [126989]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Criminal Records Bureau is being established within the framework of a Public Private Partnership. The Department has planned provision across the three financial years 1999-2002 for expenditure of around £10 million in connection with the establishment of the Bureau. But the Bureau's full operating costs will not be known until a contract has been awarded to the private sector partner.

  It has always been planned that the Bureau's costs should be recovered through the charges that it makes for certificates. Work on the level of fees must await information about the Bureau' s operating costs. But we have made clear our determination to keep the cost of certificates as low as possible. Reducing or waiving charges in respect of particular voluntary organisations, or for the voluntary sector as a whole, would raise substantial problems of principle and would either place an added burden on the public purse or lead to an increased level of fee for others seeking certificates from the Bureau, who may be no less deserving than volunteers.

  Part V of the Police Act 1997, under which the Bureau is being established, does not require volunteers to apply for certificates. It will generally be for organisations to decide who will require a certificate. Work is continuing on estimating the likely number of applicants for certificates, building on work on demand estimates and market research, and will be subject to consultation before final conclusions are reached.

  Before we make Regulations to prescribe various matters including charges for certificates, we shall undertake a Regulatory Impact Assessment, in consultation with representatives of voluntary organisations and others. This will provide a thorough and up-to-date assessment of the implications.

  Advertising
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent by his Department on advertising in each year since May 1997. [125697]

  Mr. Straw
  The money spent on advertising in each financial year since May 1997 was as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  1.4

  1998–99

  1.8

  1999–2000

  5.9

  151W
  In each year the major Home Office campaigns have been on fire safety, electoral registration and special constables recruitment. The higher expenditure in 1999-2000, was largely accounted for by additional expenditure on fire safety and on publicity to explain the new voting system for the European Parliamentary election.

  Corruption Law
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the Government's proposals for the reform of the law of corruption. [127223]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government's proposals for the reform of the law of corruption in England and Wales are published today and copies will be placed in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Licence Reminders
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will discuss with the Television Licensing Authority the sending of television licence reminder forms headed Accounts Payable to companies; and if he will make a statement. [125736]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, the BBC has statutory responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system. TV Licensing carries out the day to day administration of the licensing system as agent for the BBC. The wording of TV Licensing's renewal reminder letters is therefore a matter for TV Licensing and the BBC, and not one in which the Government can intervene. The BBC has, however, confirmed that it is not promoting the TV licence as an Account Payable.

  Orchestras
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his estimate of the number of people employed full time as professional musicians working for orchestras in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [126076]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have asked the Arts Council of England, as the main distributor of public subsidy for the arts in England, to provide this information for England. When it is available, I will write to the right hon. Member, and place a copy in the Library of the House. Figures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

  Independent Television
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will review the legislation that controls independent television in the UK with the aim of ensuring that adequate safeguards exist to protect local programme generation and local management of services. [126075]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are reviewing broadcasting legislation as part of our consideration of the future regulation of communications. Our conclusions 152W
  will be announced in the forthcoming Communications White Paper, which is being prepared jointly by my Department and the Department for Trade and Industry.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the cost to his Department of switching from the pound to the euro. [126398]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Should the UK decide to join the euro, the cost of a changeover would depend on the detailed approach taken to a changeover.

  Television Advertisements
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many television advertisements have been commissioned by his Department since 1 May 1997; and, of these, how many were provided with closed caption subtitling. [126898]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  None.

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 301W, on opinion research, if he will place all the unpublished opinion and market research carried out since January 1999 in the Library. [126984]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This material could be provided only at disproportionate cost; as indicated in my answer of 8 June, all non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department have been made aware of their obligations under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Advertising
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent by his Department on advertising in each year since May 1997. [125692]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The following table shows the cost of advertising undertaken by my Department. This expenditure was incurred to attract candidates for the many public appointments for which I am responsible.

  £

  May 1997–March 1998

  0

  1998–1999

  242,700

  1999–2000

  139,501

  2000–01 to date

  0

  BBC Public Service Proposals
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish the criteria he uses in assessing new BBC public service proposals. [127227]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I intend to publish the criteria tomorrow, and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Fiji
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government have taken to encourage the restoration of democracy in Fiji. [125216]

  Mr. Battle
  We have condemned the use of criminal armed force by the kidnappers in Fiji and demanded the release of all the hostages, the restoration of democratic, constitutional government and the arrest of the hostage-takers. In pursuit of these aims, I participated in the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group on 6 June which agreed to suspend Fiji from Commonwealth Councils and to send a CMAG delegation to Fiji. We are also discussing with our EU partners ways of encouraging the restoration of democracy in Fiji.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political situation in Zimbabwe. [125217]

  Mr. Hain
  We hope that the presence of over 300 international observers will help the people of Zimbabwe to overcome their fears, political intimidation and violence and exercise their democratic right to vote.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe. [125224]

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's relations with Zimbabwe. [125226]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK and Zimbabwe have a shared history. Our people know each other well. But President Mugabe's actions and rhetoric have made it difficult for us to have the warm and friendly government-to-government relations that we would like.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Zimbabwean high commissioner on land reform. [125232]

  Mr. Hain
  The Zimbabwe High Commissioner was a member of the delegation that met my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 27 April. We have had no further discussions with him on land reform.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the rule of law in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [125234]

  Mr. Hain
  We have had discussions with people inside and outside of Zimbabwe on the urgent need to restore the rule of law there.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Zimbabwe to discuss the political situation there; and if he will make a statement. [125240]

  Mr. Hain
  I have not visited Zimbabwe in my capacity as FCO Minister of State.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries have ratified the statute for an International Criminal Court; and if he will make a statement. [125218]

  Mr. Vaz
  To date 97 countries have signed and 12 have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Court will come into existence once the Statute has been ratified by 60 states. The UK intends to be one of those 60.

  Iran
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Iranian authorities on securing a fair trial for the 13 Jews accused of espionage. [125219]

  Mr. Hain
  This Government and our EU colleagues have raised with the Iranians at every appropriate opportunity our concerns about the trial on espionage charges in Shiraz of 13 Jews and eight Muslims.

  The Danube
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of when a navigable route will be available along the Danube for the countries economically dependent on it; and if he will make a statement. [125220]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK welcomed the proposal on 24 May by the European Commission for an EU contribution of up to 22 million euro to the International Fund for the Clearance of the Danube. This proposal followed a comprehensive examination of the technical issues associated with this project. The target date for the opening of a navigable channel at Novi Sad is spring 2001. Provided this timetable is met, work on the second phase of the project to restore the river-beds and banks would begin in summer 2001. We will work with the EU towards completing this work on time and in accordance with the EU sanctions regime.

  Ethical Foreign Policy
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in developing an ethical dimension to his foreign policy; and if he will make a statement. [125221]

  Mr. Hain
  We consistently promote British interests and pursue British values by supporting democracy and human rights wherever we can, however we can.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the current position is in respect of the UN arms embargo on Sierra Leone. [125222]

  Mr. Hain
  United Nations Security Council resolution 1171 (1998) imposed an embargo on the sale and supply of arms and related material to Sierra Leone other than to the Government of Sierra Leone through named entry points. There are exemptions in that resolution and in resolution 1299 (2000) for supply to the United Nations
  155W
  and the Military Observer Group of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOMOG) as well as UN member states co-operating with UNAMSIL and the Government of Sierra Leone.

  The UK fully supports and rigorously implements the embargo. We are discussing with Security Council colleagues ways to ensure that is implemented more effectively by all states.

  Middle East
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [125227]

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the situation in the middle east peace process. [125228]

  Mr. Hain
  The Middle East Peace Process is at a crucial stage. On the Palestinian track, negotiations continue in the US. We continue to work for a conflict-ending agreement this summer.

  On the Syrian track, we are watching developments closely following the death of President Asad. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended his funeral last week and met his son, Bashar. We believe Syria remains committed to the peace process and look forward to continuing Syrian and Israeli efforts to reach agreement.

  We welcome UN confirmation that Israel has withdrawn fully from Lebanon. We shall continue to work hard with the UN and countries in the region to maintain calm and stability in southern Lebanon.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the middle east peace process. [125237]

  Mr. Hain
  We are in frequent contact with all the parties. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met a number of interlocutors, including Bashar al-Assad, at the condolence ceremony for the late President Assad on 13 June.

  Angola
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effect of UN sanctions in Angola on the operational activities of UNITA. [125231]

  Mr. Hain
  UN sanctions are making it harder for UNITA to continue fighting and put pressure on UNITA to return to the negotiating table. We commend the work of the Expert Panel of the UN Angola Sanctions Committee in investigating violations of the sanctions and developing recommendations on tightening implementation. The UK strongly supported the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1295 on 18 April. The resolution welcomes the Panel's report, stresses the obligations of all member states to comply with the measures against UNITA and expresses the readiness of the Council to consider action in relation to states it determines to have violated those measures. This shows the determination of the international community to make sanctions bite.

  Plan Colombia
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Plan Colombia and the part the United Kingdom can play in its development. [125233]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton),Official Report, columns 150–51.

  Burma
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Burma. [125235]

  Mr. Battle
  We are deeply concerned at the lack of any prospects towards democratisation in Burma, as well as at the serious violations of human rights there. We are at the forefront of international action to press the military regime to improve the situation and to enter into dialogue with democratically elected Burmese leaders.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce investment sanctions against Burma. [126908]

  Mr. Battle
  There is no consensus within the European Union or the United Nations for investment sanctions at the moment, nor do we have any plans to introduce such measures. But we do discourage trade and investment in Burma by UK companies. In March, I met the Chief Executive of Premier Oil, and made clear to him our deep concern about their investment in Burma and that we would welcome their moving out as soon as and to the fullest extent that they lawfully can. We regularly give business inquiries a statement on the nature of the Burmese regime and the state of the economy.

  The European Union has recently adopted a freeze on funds held by members of the Burmese regime. We will continue to press the regime in other fields too: for example the ILO has just agreed to adopt unprecedented measures against the regime in an effort to stop forced labour.

  EU Enlargement
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be on the agenda in respect of enlargement at the forthcoming European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement. [125236]

  Mr. Vaz
  As the hon. Member may know, the European Council took place yesterday and today. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making a statement on the outcome to the House tomorrow.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British policy on the enlargement of the European Union. [125230]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby),Official Report, column 141.

  Ukraine
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral relations with Ukraine. [125239]

  Mr. Vaz
  Bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and Ukraine are very good. We engage with Ukraine in a broad range of activity and maintain close contacts at working and ministerial level. I had three meetings with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Borys Tarasyuk, in 1999 and visited Kiev in April this year. I have invited Mr. Tarasyuk to pay an official visit to the United Kingdom in early 2001. The newly established UK-Ukraine Consultative Mechanism provides an additional channel for regular dialogue between 10 Downing Street and the President's Administration.

  Diamond Trade (Africa)
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in stopping trading in diamonds which fuels conflict in Africa. [125241]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are committed to curbing the trade in diamonds which fuels conflict in Africa. We fully support UN Security Council resolution 1173 (1998) which prohibits the import from Angola of diamonds not controlled through the Angolan Government's Certificate of Origin regime. We have tabled a draft UN Security Council Resolution which would ban the import of uncertified diamonds from Sierra Leone.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the BBC World Service in north America. [125242]

  Mr. Hain
  The BBC World Service broadcasts to North America as it does to other parts of the world. Its radio audience in Canada is a third of a million. In the USA it is 2.7 million. This figure represents significant growth, and has been achieved mainly through the establishment of local rebroadcasting partnerships. World Service activity world-wide is monitored against targets and is subject to periodic review with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Russia
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's bilateral relations with Russia. [125243]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our relations with Russia are in good shape. We want to do what we can to encourage a democratic and stable Russia. The key is critical engagement. We should not isolate Russia, nor should we shy away from issues on which we disagree, such as Chechnya.

  EU (French Presidency)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has 158W
  had with the Government of France to discuss its presidency of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [125223]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regular contact with his French counterpart, M. Vedrine, on a number of issues, including the French Presidency of the European Union. He is next due to discuss the Presidency with M. Vedrine on 21 June. I also met Pierre Moscovici, the French Minister for Europe, in Santa Maria da Feira to discuss the Presidency.

  Czech Republic
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic. [125225]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK enjoys excellent relations with the Czech Republic. The Czech Defence Minister is in the UK today. And my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit Prague in July. We are close NATO allies, and the UK fully supports the Czech application for EU membership.

  Wine Expenditure
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2000,Official Report, column 496W, concerning his Department's spending on champagne and other wine, in which category such expenditure is recorded; what items in addition to (a) champagne and (b) other wine are recorded in this category; and how much his Department has spent on items in this category in each year since 1 May 1997. [124246]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office records this expenditure as official entertainment. The costs also include such items as catering requirements (including food/drink), related hire charges, and other administration costs (such as invitation cards). The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not maintain a comprehensive central record of these categories of expenditure.

  International Traffic and Arms Regulations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the benefits to the UK of being granted special status under the US International Traffic and Arms Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [125381]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Defence on 15 June 2000,Official Report, columns 667–68W.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking on human rights in Saudi Arabia following the Amnesty International report "Saudi Arabia: A Justice System Without Justice"; and if he will make a statement. [126080]
  159W
  Mr. Hain
  Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country in which justice is based on Sharia Law. The British Government respect Islam but have concerns about human rights in the Kingdom, including the discrimination against women and non-Muslims, the restrictions on freedom of expression, movement, assembly and worship, the implementation of UN human rights instruments, and issues relating to the judicial process.

  The British Government are firmly committed to constructive engagement on human rights with Saudi Arabia and discuss the issue regularly with the Saudis. The Government take, and will continue to take, every realistic and responsible step to try to improve matters.

  Nazi Slave Labour Victims
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement as to the circumstances in which the proposed compensation package for slave labour victims of the Nazis to be met by the German Government have been proposed to be reduced in respect of claimants in the "rest-of-the-world" group, including United Kingdom residents. [126032]

  Mr. Vaz
  I understand that the sum of money earmarked at one stage of the negotiations for allocation to "rest-of-the-world" claimants was reduced subsequently in discussions between the German and US Governments.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received(a) from and (b) on behalf of slave labour victims of the Nazis, in respect of the German compensation fund. [126030]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have received a number of letters from colleagues in the House, on behalf of their constituents.

  My officials have spoken regularly with representatives of former Poles and Ukrainians who were former slave/forced labourers.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the original estimate of compensation levels for Nazi slave labour victims under the German compensation scheme(a) in total and (b) in respect of each category of case; and what is the current estimate under the revised proposals put forward by the German Government as to (a) and (b). [126033]

  Mr. Vaz
  Agreement on a fund totalling DM10 billion was announced in December 1999.

  The amount of compensation intended for allocation to former slave labourers has been set at a maximum of DM15,000 per claimant. Former forced labourers may receive a aximum of DM5,000.

  Current uncertainty about the availability of funds and the process of disbursement mean it is not possible at this stage to predict the sum which will be available in practice to individual claimants.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the German Government concerning the regulations over the compensation scheme for slave labour victims of the Nazi regime. [126029]
  160W
  Mr. Vaz
  Our Ambassador in Berlin has written recently to the German Government to express concern that UK claimants have free, fair and equal access to the compensation fund. We remain in close touch with the German Government on this.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made as to the number of rest-of-the-world claimants resident in the United Kingdom, who are likely to qualify for compensation from the German fund for slave labour victims of the Nazis. [126031]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have no exact numbers for the UK, but understand that there may be 2,000 or more potential claimants.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Kosovan Albanians have been referred to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for atrocities committed against Serbs and other non-Albanian people in Kosovo. [126219]

  Mr. Hain
  The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is investigating all atrocities committed in Kosovo regardless of the perpetrator's ethnic origin. ICTY has issued indictments against five Serbs for alleged crimes against humanity in Kosovo. No Kosovan Albanians have yet been indicted.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the percentage of UNMIK'S authorised civil administration staff deployed in Kosovo. [126647]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: According to the United Nations Secretariat there are 1,148 approved posts for international staff working for UNMIK, 75 per cent. of which are currently filled. There are a number of staff who have been appointed but have not yet arrived in Kosovo. When they do, 90 per cent. of the approved posts for international staff will be filled.

  United Nations
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his(a) EU and (b) UN counterparts concerning Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's proposal that the United Nations should transform its civilian-run peacekeeping Department into a larger and more effective military-style operation. [126607]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: We strongly support efforts to enhance the operational capacity and effectiveness of the UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). We are working closely with the UN Secretariat, the United States, and other EU and UN members.

  Military officers are already closely involved in the preparation and execution of United Nations peacekeeping missions. But DPKO needs increased intelligence and planning capacity and an enhanced capacity to manage police and other civilian deployments. And, since modern peacekeeping is now rarely wholly military in nature, we want to see better integration of military and civilian resources. I have also explained the concept of a UN rapid reaction capability.

  Official Visits (Overseas)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his officials who have visited(a) Nigeria, (b) Liberia, (c) Sierra Leone and (d) Togo since January 1999. [126610]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: There have been regular visits by a range of officials to these four countries since January 1999.

  The provision of a detailed breakdown would incur disproportionate cost.

  UN Register of Conventional Arms
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the UK will submit its return covering imports and exports of major types of conventional weapons during 1999 to the UN Register of Conventional Arms; and if he will place copies of the return in the Library. [127224]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government submitted the UK's return to the UN Register covering conventional arms transfers in calendar year 1999 on 20 June. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Echelon Surveillance System
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to establish that the Echelon Surveillance System is not used to the economic disbenefit of(a) the UK and (b) other EU states; and if he will make a statement. [126298]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The hon. Member will be well aware of the Government's policy not to comment on alleged surveillance systems.

  China
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights record of the Chinese Government in respect of practitioners of Falun Gong; and what steps he is taking to promote human rights in China. [126669]

  Mr. Battle
  We are deeply concerned about the treatment of Falun Gong adherents, including the passing of severe sentences, by the Chinese authorities since the movement was banned in July 1999. We and EU partners have made this clear to the Chinese Government on a number of occasions and urged them to comply with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which China signed in October 1998.

  On 20 June I called in the Chinese Ambassador to London and expressed directly my concerns to Mr. Ma on the treatment of dissidents in China, and on the alleged intimidation in China of family members of a Falun Gong practitioner who is a UK citizen.

  We are pressing for greater respect for human rights in China through our bilateral human rights dialogue with the Chinese Government. During the last round of the dialogue in February 2000 we agreed to establish a joint expert working group to work towards the ratification and implementation of the International Covenants on Civil and Political, and on Economic, Social and Cultural
  162W
  Rights. An invitation was also extended to the Foreign Secretary's Death Penalty Panel to visit China to discuss issues relating to abolition of the Death Penalty throughout China.

  Execution (Texas)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to Governor George Bush of Texas about the execution on 22 June of Mr. Gary Graham. [126983]

  Mr. Battle
  The EU Presidency, on behalf of the UK and other members, made representations to the Governor of Texas on 17 May on behalf of Mr. Graham asking him to commute Mr. Graham's sentence to life imprisonment, or such other penalty as is compatible with international law. Notice of the EU Demarche was given to the State Department.

  Advertising
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent by his Department on advertising in each year since May 1997. [125694]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not use advertising to publicise Government policy or programmes.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the additional administration cost of every(a) budgeting loan and (b) crisis loan if they were repaid over a period of (i) 78 weeks, (ii) 104 weeks, (iii) 130 weeks and (iv) 156 weeks. [125286]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Social Fund is a mater for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 19 June 2000:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will estimate the additional administration cost of every (a) budgeting loan and (b) crisis loan if they were repaid over a period of (i) 78 weeks, (ii) 104 weeks, (iii) 130 weeks and (iv) 156 weeks.

  The integrity of the social fund depends on recycling the loans within a reasonable timescale to make future loans available as soon as possible.

  Only a composite figure for the cost of recovering budgeting loans and crisis loans is available. Approximately 95% of Social Fund recovery is taken directly from benefit in payment to the customer. Around 90% of that is taken automatically through a computerised link between the Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance computer systems and the Social Fund system. Staff input is required at the beginning and end of the process, but very little intervention is needed during the course of the recovery. While some recovery from benefit is made by clerical processes, and customers no longer in receipt of benefit are pursued to repay their loans by other means, the proportionate cost of this is small in comparison to the overall cost of recovery.

  As a consequence, it is estimated that the administrative cost of the process would not be greatly affected by the duration of the recovery period if the customers who took advantage of the longer

  163W
  repayment periods remained on benefit throughout. However, the longer the payment period, it is more likely that customers will leave benefit before their loan is repaid. Then the proportion requiring clerical activity would increase and therefore administration costs would rise but we are at present unable to quantify by how much.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in the Basildon parliamentary constituency received Winter Fuel Payments in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and how much was paid in total in each of those years. [125955]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Winter Fuel Payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Angela Smith, dated 19 June 2000:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many pensioners in the Basildon parliamentary constituency received winter fuel payments in (a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and how much was paid in total in each of those years.

  In 1998–99, 13,241 winter fuel payments (WFP) were made in the Basildon constituency; in 1999–2000, 16,098 payments were made.

  In 1998–99, the total amount of WFP in the Basildon constituency was £256,940; in 1999–2000, the total was £1,204,050.

  WFP exercises before 1998–99 highlighted that over 500,000 customer accounts did not hold a postcode. A correction exercise resulted in more postcodes being allocated. The figures for 1999–2000 in the Basildon constituency increased due to this, and also because of the increase in the WFP from £50 to £100 from 1999–2000.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Widowed Mother's Allowance
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Benefits Agency received application for widowed mother's allowance and widows' payment from Mrs. C. M. of Weston Turville, Buckinghamshire (WA 075311C); when his Department will complete its calculation of her benefit; when she will receive payments; and if he will make a statement. [126529]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. David Lidington, dated 19 June 2000:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the widow's benefit claim made by Mrs Caroline Moran, 4 Worlds End Lane, Weston Turville, Aylesbury.

  As you will appreciate, individual customers' cases are confidential. I will therefore, write to you privately on this matter.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what his target is for processing applications for widowed mother's allowance; how many applications are being processed within that target time; and if he will make a statement; [126525]
  164W
  (2) how many applicants are currently awaiting a decision on the calculation of their entitlement to widowed mother's allowance; and how many of those have been waiting for more than (a) three months, (b) six months and (c) 12 months; [126523]

  (3) what is his policy on paying interest on late payments of widowed mother's allowance. [126524]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. David Lidington, dated 19 June 2000:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary questions asking, what his target is for processing applications for widowed mothers allowance; how many applications are being processed within that target time; and if he will make a statement. Also, how many applicants are currently awaiting a decision on the calculation of their entitlement to widowed mother's allowance; and how many of those have been waiting for more than (a) three months, (b) six months and (c) 12 months, and what is his policy on paying interest on late payments of widowed mother's allowance (WMA).

  The Benefits Agency (BA) has targets for the clearance of Widows Benefit claims. The targets are measured from the date of receipt of the claim in the BA to the date the benefit is awarded. Figures for the individual widows benefits, such as Widowed Mothers Allowance are not maintained.

  The current clearance target is 85 per cent. in 10 days for Widows payment cases and 85 per cent. in 30 days for Widows benefit.

  The latest figures available show that for the year ended March 2000, 90.2 per cent. of claims to Widows Payment and 78.5 per cent. of claims to Widows Benefit were cleared within target.

  For the months of April and May 2000 the Widows payment clearance is running at 91.5 per cent. and at 84.5 per cent. for Widows Benefit.

  Although individual benefit offices would be able to focus on the state of their uncleared claims for management purposes these details are not fed into any national statistical counters. The information required to answer your question could only therefore be obtained at inappropriate cost and effort.

  It is clear from the figures quoted above that the clearance target for Widows Benefit claims was not met for 1999–2000. This has been due for the most part to the difficulties associated with the introduction of the new National Insurance computer system (NIRS2). NIRS2 provides the BA with its benefit calculations including those for entitlements to Retirement Pension and Widows Benefits.

  Early figures for 2000–2001 as above show an improving level of clearance for Widows Benefit claims as NIRS2 recovery proceeds.

  Failure to process a WMA claim within the published operational targets will not, in itself give rise to a special payment. Each case must be considered on its own merits.

  In the majority of cases, it is anticipated that claims will be processed by the Agency within published timescales. However, some cases will legitimately take longer to process than others because of the complex nature of the case and the degree of work involved.

  Different rules apply where payment was delayed because of the implementation of the new National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2). Where a customer has suffered unreasonable delay and inconvenience in receiving their full entitlement to WMA which was solely attributable to the problems encountered with the implementation of NIRS2, they automatically receive a £10 flat-rate compensatory payment.

  Where payment of WMA has been unreasonably and exceptionally delayed due to official error a special compensatory payment in the form of interest would be considered.
  165W
  Where the customer feels that the compensation calculated does not adequately compensate for the financial loss actually suffered as a direct result of the delay, a specific claim for further compensation should be made by the customer and full supporting evidence of the loss provided.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Automatic Credit Transfers
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the payment of benefit by automatic credit transfers involves the notification of the claimant's national insurance number to the receiving bank. [126542]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of benefit payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 19 June 2000:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking if the payment of benefit by automated credit transfer (ACT) involves the notification of the claimant's National Insurance number to the receiving bank.

  Payments made by ACT are made through BACS (the UK's major automated clearing house). For BACS to accept a payment file completion of a number of identification fields is mandatory, for example bank/building society account number, sort code and amount.

  Another mandatory requirement is for the inclusion of a payment reference. The inclusion of a reference allows each benefit system to track and trace individual payments, facilitating action such as recalling a payment and responding to customer enquiries.

  All benefits use the customers' National Insurance number as a payment reference, with the exception of Child Benefit for which the Child Benefit number is used.

  This reference is passed over to the receiving bank with all other payment details.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners there are whose income takes them above the qualifying income for minimum income guarantee but who receive a final income below the minimum income guarantee once council tax rebates and Housing Benefit are deducted. [127074]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available.

  State Pension
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of increasing the basic state pension for persons over(a) 75 and (b) 80 to the level of the minimum income guarantee. [126673]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated costs of increasing the basic state pension

  £million

  2001–02

  75 and over

  80 and over

  Gross

  3,600

  2,400

  Net of means-tested benefits

  2,600

  1,600

  Notes:

  1. It is assumed that the Category A rate of basic Retirement Pension is raised to the level of the Minimum Income Guarantee in 2001–02 (assumed to be £84.80 for those aged 75 to 79, and £90.20 for those aged 80 and over).
  166W
  2. It is assumed that basic Retirement Pension recipients with entitlement of less than the full Category A rate receive a pro-rata increase, except married women in receipt of the Category BL pension, who receive an increase such that the Category A and Category BL pension together are equivalent to the appropriate couple rate of the Minimum Income Guarantee.

  3. These estimates include a saving of £30 million from the removal of the 25p age addition currently paid to those aged 80 and over.

  4. Costs are rounded to the nearest £100 million and are in 2000–01 prices.

  5. Costs include benefits whose rates are linked by statute to the rate of basic Retirement Pension.

  6. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department. Costs net of means-tested benefit savings have been estimated using the Policy Simulation Model.

  Radiation Diseases
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the recommendations made by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in relation to diseases caused by radiation will be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [127226]

  Mr. Bayley
  Amendment Regulations to the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985 were laid yesterday implementing the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's recommendations with effect from 10 July 2000. All the Council's recommendations set out in their report "Diseases induced by Ionising and Non-Ionising Radiation" (Cm 4280) are included in the amending regulations.

  The regulations also clarify that the time limits that operate between leaving a prescribed occupation and making a claim for asthma (prescribed disease D7) and deafness (prescribed disease A10) refer to employed earners employment. The regulations also specify the exact lung function formulae that should be used in connection with claims for chronic bronchitis and emphysema rather than making a reference to a textbook.

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 June 2000,Official Report, column 606W, on the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, (a) how many of those local authorities who have reported the appointment of an inspector have a serving inspector at present and (b) how many inspectors are serving at present. [127086]

  Angela Eagle
  The figures in my Written Answer on 13 June 2000,Official Report, column 606W, referred to the number of inspectors currently serving. Since then, the Department has been notified of the appointment of one additional inspector, bringing the total currently serving up to 720 in 209 local authorities.

TREASURY

  Census
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking on including a question concerning religious identity in the 2001 Census; [126011]
  167W
  (2) how many representations he has received from (a) hon. Members and (b) others concerning the inclusion of a question in the 2001 Census concerning religious identity. [126012]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on 15 June 2000,Official Report, column 687W.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector of changing from the pound to the euro. [126403]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Should the UK decide to join the euro, the costs of a changeover would depend on the detailed approach taken by organisations to a changeover.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the Treasury's estimate of the economic and fiscal consequences of joining the first wave of the euro in 1999; and if he will update it. [126791]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury published the paper, "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests", in October 1997. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said we will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what safeguards he has put in place to ensure that money spent through the National Changeover plan will be neutral in its impact upon public opinion about whether the United Kingdom should join the euro. [126185]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: Government policy on the euro was set out in the Second Outline National Changeover Plan.

  The Government are committed to making preparations both to help business deal with the euro following its introduction in the 11 participating member states on 1 January 1999, and also to making preparations for the possibility of the UK joining the single currency.

  VAT
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers are available to him to offer a VAT rebate on holiday accommodation for visitors in the United Kingdom with particular reference to citizens of other EU states; and if he will make a statement. [126981]

  Mr. Timms
  There is no mechanism to rebate any of the VAT paid by tourists on the holiday accommodation they stay in while in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will use the powers available to him to vary the rate of VAT on specific services on a regional basis; and if he will make a statement. [126980]

  Mr. Timms
  The Chancellor has no powers to vary the rate of VAT on specific services on a regional basis.

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 384W, on opinion research, how he is intending to make the results of this research publicly available in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines. [126985]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Cabinet Office guide on Government research into public attitudes and opinions, published on 12 May 2000, says It is good practice to publish the results of research, or at least to place them in the House of Commons Library and make them publicly available on request and on the Internet.
  We take full account of the Cabinet Office guidelines.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letters of 4 April and 3 May from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent Helen Cruickshank. [126675]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I replied to the hon. Member on 8 April. A copy will be forwarded.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter of 9 May from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent Vernon Hope. [126676]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I replied to the hon. Member on 14 June.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ring-fence landfill tax for waste recycling and reduction. [126804]

  Mr. Timms
  I have no plans to do so. However, the recently published Waste Strategy announced that the Government propose to use the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme to help deliver an increase in recycling, particularly of household waste.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) cases were dealt with by (i) stipendiary magistrates and (ii) non-stipendiary magistrates benches and (b) each way cases were referred to the Crown court by (1) stipendiary magistrates and (2) non-stipendiary magistrate benches in each magistrates courts committee, for the last five years for which figures are available. [126442]

  Jane Kennedy
  A breakdown of cases dealt with by stipendiary magistrates and non-stipendiary magistrates benches is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

CABINET OFFICE

  Business Excellence Model
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the progress of Phase three of the Public Sector Benchmarking project relating to the use of the Business Excellence Model. [125940]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Public Sector Benchmarking Project promotes the EFQM Excellence Model (previously the Business Excellence Model) to the public sector. Phase three, which begun in April 1998, includes arrangements for easy access to training and support at reduced rates. Since then, the project has introduced over 1,000 public sector organisations to the Model.

  The Model is now used throughout the public sector, including local government, central Government, schools, hospitals, police forces, fire brigades, Agencies and non-departmental public bodies. It is used in support of the Modernising Government agenda, through policies such as Best Value and Better Quality Services.

  We are not complacent. We are studying further the impact of the Excellence Model to help us decide how we can improve our efforts to maximise the use of the Excellence Model in the public sector.

  The Public Sector Benchmarking Project is now known as the Public Sector Excellence Programme.

  Table 1—Data relating to DFEE responsibilities which are collated by Parliamentary Constituency.

  Subject area

  Availability/frequency of publication/reference period

  Working age employment rates

  Annually for 1996, 1997 and 1998. 1999 data due in January 2001. Published by ONS

  Working age economic activity rates

  As above

  ILO unemployment rates

  As above but only available for about 80 constituencies due to small samples sizes

  Claimant unemployment rates and claimant unemployment levels by age and duration

  Monthly from January 1996. Latest available data is for April 2000. Published by ONS

  Employee jobs by industry

  1995–98 data are available currently. Next update for 1999 due in March 2001. Published by ONS.

  Average earnings of full-time employees

  Available for 1998 and 1999. Published by ONS.

  New Deal for Young People Statistics

  Available quarterly and updated quarterly

  Proportion of 15 year old pupils in schools achieving 5 or more A*-C GCSE/GNVQs (by parliamentary constituency of the school)

  Collated for 1998–99

  Proportion of 15 year old pupils in schools with 1 or more A*-G GCSE/GNVQs (by parliamentary constituency of the school)

  Collated for 1998–99

  Proportion of school pupils achieving level 4 at Key Stage 2 in English and Maths. (by parliamentary constituency of school)

  Collated for 1998–99

  1997–98 Individual College Results: median college (by parliamentary constituency of college)

  Collated for 1997–98

  Class sizes (by parliamentary constituency of school)

  Collated for January 200

  A-level results (by parliamentary constituency of school/college)

  Collated for 1998–99

  Unauthorised absences—Percentage half days missed due to unauthorised absences (by parliamentary constituency of school)

  Collated for 1998–99

  Note:

  Other information collected in the Annual Schools Census, and school performance data using other measures than those quoted, could not be collated by constituency

  Taskforces and Review Groups
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the(a) task forces and (b) review groups which have been established since 1 May 1997, indicating which are still in existence; and how many there were on 1 May in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2000. [126500]

  Mr. Stringer
  A full list of Task Forces established between 2 May 1997 and 31 October 1999 was placed in the Library of the House on 9 December 1999. A list of review groups established during the same period was placed in the Library on 1 February 2000. We have given a commitment to update these lists every six months. Updated lists covering the period to the end of April 2000 will be published shortly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistics relating to the responsibilities of his Department are collated by parliamentary constituency, indicating the dates covered in each case. [123846]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: The information requested is shown in the following table:

  New Deal Gateway
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the flexibility of the New Deal Gateway in order to cope with those clients with severe social problems. [123883]

  Ms Jowell
  There already exists a high degree of flexibility in the Gateway for those with severe social problems, not least through the individually tailored support from the New Deal Personal Adviser. They are able to make use of systematic assessment techniques to identify problems that may be preventing the young person moving into employment. Young people will then, if necessary, be referred by their adviser to a range of provision which can help them with jobsearch, training in basic skills, dealing with issues such as drug or alcohol abuse. This help can be continued beyond the Gateway when the young person is on an option.

  Advisers will also be able to defer entry to the new Gateway to Work by a few weeks for those young people who have other issues that need to be resolved and who would not be ready to benefit from the course.

  School Lunches
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library a list and a summary of responses to consultation on draft regulations and guidance for minimum nutritional standards for school lunches. [124496]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]: A list and a summary of responses to our consultation on draft regulations and guidance for minimum nutritional standards for school lunches was published on 19 June, and copies have been placed in the Libraries.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the resource implications of the incorporation of health and safety issues into the National Curriculum; and if he will make a statement on developments on this matter. [125714]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 June 2000]: Health and safety issues have always been included in the National Curriculum. The revised curriculum, which will take effect in autumn 2000, contains clearer and fuller statements of the general principles applying to health and safety teaching, including the importance of risk assessment. Subject specific requirements are highlighted in individual subject orders. The only new requirement relates to Information and Communications Technology to reflect the massive increase in the use of computers in schools in recent years.

  £6 million is available to schools from the Standards Fund to support the implementation of the revised National Curriculum. In addition, the Health and Safety Executive and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority have produced joint guidance on teaching health and safety issues which is available at www.hse.gov.uk/policy/ genteach.htm.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the costs to his Department of conversion to the euro from the pound. [126402]

  Mr. Wills: Should the UK decide to join the euro, the cost of a changeover would depend on the detailed approach taken to a changeover.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment whether teachers employed to teach in(a) institutions for young people maintained by social sciences departments and (b) prison institutions for young offenders are eligible for performance-related pay. [126318]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Teachers employed to teach in institutions for young people maintained by social services departments and in prison institutions for young offenders are not, as of right, subject to the terms of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document and are not eligible to apply for the threshold in the current round of the assessment process. In response to representations received from institutions wishing to mirror the threshold arrangements, we are actively considering how to open up threshold training and the external assessment process to such institutions once the immediate pressures of the current application round have reduced.

  School Milk
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent guidance he has issued to(a) infant, (b) junior and (c) primary schools in England and Wales on school milk schemes. [127029]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government encourage schools to provide drinking milk, and to make use of either the EU School Milk Subsidy Scheme or the Welfare Food Scheme. These schemes are administered by the Intervention Board, on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and by the Department of Health, respectively.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average class size was for classes taught by one teacher in(a) 1996 and (b) 2000 for (i) pupils in Key Stage 1, (ii) pupils in Key Stage 2, (iii) primary schools and (iv) secondary schools in (1) Great Britain and (2) each parliamentary constituency. [126175]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: Class size information covering English parliamentary constituencies for 1996–97 and 1999–2000 has been placed in the Library.

  Provisional national estimates of Key Stage 1 classes for January 2000 were recently published in a Statistical First Release "Class sizes in maintained schools in England: January 2000 (15/2000)" on 12 April 2000.

  National figures for infant class sizes in September 1999 were published in Statistical First Release "Infant class sizes in England (2/2000)" on 21 January 2000.
  173W
  The Government are well on target to deliver their pledge to limit infant classes to 30 pupils. At the same time, average class sizes in maintained primary schools went down for the second year running—from 27.5 in January 1999 to 27.1 in January 2000, after rising for the previous 10 years. The average size of junior classes also fell, from 28.4 in January 1999 to 28.3 in January 2000. Maintained secondary classes are already much smaller than primary, with around five fewer pupils on average. The pupil:teacher ratio in secondary schools in January 2000 was 17.1. It is worth bearing in mind that secondary classes rose steadily under the previous Government—in 1998 the figure was 19.9; and that in the Budget, secondary headteachers received between £30,000 and £50,000 each to spend as they choose. If they spent it on teachers, they could reduce the secondary pupil:teacher ratio by 0.4.

  For information on class sizes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I refer the hon. Member to the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Disabled School Children
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) resources and (b) money targeted at improving access for disabled school children has been made available (i) nationally (ii) in Teesside and (iii) in the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [126496]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: Each year we make resources available through the School Access Initiative, to invest in making mainstream schools accessible to those with disabilities and sensory impairments. The following table sets out the amount allocated each year since 1997–98, nationally, in Teesside, and to Redcar and Cleveland LEA (which covers the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East).

  This is part of this Government's determination to improve educational standards for all children and work towards a more inclusive approach for children with disabilities. More than 1,900 schools will benefit from this year's £30 million programme. Working closely with LEAs like this offers us the best opportunity to secure a coherent approach to opportunities for disabled children.

  Financial Year

  England (£ million)

  Teesside1 (£)

  Redcar and Cleveland LEA (£)

  1997–98

  3.6

  57,860

  15,000

  1998–99

  11

  175,000

  35,000

  1999–2000

  20

  350,000

  100,000

  2000–01

  30

  490,000

  140,000

  1Includes Hartlepool, Stockton on Tees, Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland LEAs

  Correspondence
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Hexham of 22 February about the reduction in Northumberland school budgets. [126768]
  174W
  Mr. Wills
  A reply will be issued by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shortly.

  New Deal
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each parliamentary constituency(a) the total number of leavers from the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, (b) the total number of leavers who have gone into sustained unsubsidised employment and (c) the total number of leavers whose destination is unknown in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [126178]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: The information on young people showing the number of leavers and the number of people moving into sustained unsubsidised employment is already held at constituency level in the Library. Although the number of people leaving for unknown destinations is not published at constituency level, it is available at Unit of Delivery level and is also in the Library. More statistical information is available and more research findings are published on New Deal than any previous Government programme.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many lone parents in Paisley, South have found employment as a consequence of the New Deal for Lone Parents. [126816]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: Between October 1998 and the end of March 2000, 78 lone parents in Paisley, South had found employment as a consequence of the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the impact of the New Deal for(a) young people, (b) those aged over 50 years and (c) the long-term unemployed in Coventry. [125642]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]: Up to the end of March 2000, 3,140 young people and 2,215 long term unemployed adults had benefited from starting the New Deal in Coventry. The New Deal for those aged 50 or over was launched nationally in April this year and it is too soon to provide statistics. New Deal has had a major impact on the employability of those who have taken part in the initiative; already over 1,750 people have found jobs. Many others have gained from the Personal Adviser approach and benefited from training, education and work experience opportunities.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people on the New Deal for over 25s in(a) Edinburgh and (b) Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (i) at the end of March and (ii) at the latest available date, (1) were in the advisory interview process, (2) had found unsubsidised jobs through the advisory interview process, (3) had transferred to other provision, (4) were in subsidised employment, (5) had taken education and training opportunities, (6) were in training for work and (7) were in follow through. [125754]
  175W
  Ms Jowell
  The information is contained in the following table.

  Edinburgh

  Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh

  In advisory interview process

  499

  73

  Found unsubsidised jobs through advisory interview process

  160

  35

  Transferred to other provision

  119

  22

  In subsidised employment

  32

  5

  Taken education and training opportunities

  61

  7

  In Training for Work

  42

  5

  In Follow Through

  3

  0

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in Edinburgh had(a) joined the 18 to 24 New Deal, (b) gained subsidised jobs from the 18 to 24 New Deal, (c) gained unsubsidised jobs from the 18 to 24 New Deal, (d) started on the 18 to 24 New Deal Gateway, (e) entered each of the 18 to 24 New Deal Options and (f) been on follow-through (i) at the end of March and (ii) at the latest available date. [125822]

  Ms Jowell
  Latest figures show that to the end of March 2000 in Edinburgh 3,099 people joined the New Deal for Young People, 232 gained subsidised jobs, 1,238 gained unsubsidised jobs, 2,739 started on the New Deal Gateway, 232 started the employment option, 397 started Full Time Education and Training, 239 started the Voluntary Sector option, 194 started the Environment Task Force option and 594 started Follow Through. We are on course to meet our Manifesto commitment of 250,000 jobs.

  Governors' Advice Line
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to launch a governors' advice line as recommended by the Education and Employment Committee's Fifth report of Session 1998–99, HC509—I; and when it will be available for school governors to use. [126904]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government stated their commitment to providing a single national helpline for school governors in the response my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made last autumn to the Select Committee's Report on the Role of School Governors. Negotiations with national governor organisations' representatives are continuing. Meanwhile, we are funding the three existing governors' helplines provided by the National Governors' Council, the National Association of Governors and Managers and Information for School and College Governors.

  We greatly appreciate the work done by governors, as volunteers, and we want them to have access to independent advice from experienced governors.

  ICT Access
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice has been given to schools about allowing local residents' groups and other organisations access to computers and other facilities outside school hours. [126116]
  176W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Department published "Raising Standards: opening doors: developing links between schools and their communities" in January this year. This document offers wide-ranging advice to schools on allowing greater access to their premises and facilities and on enhancing their links with the local community. It is available free of charge to all schools.

  We are also planning to publish later this year a Schools Plus Manual, which will offer schools further practical advice and support on how to develop as a community resource and how to strengthen their relationships with their local community.

  In March this year the Schools Plus Policy Action Team, set up by the Social Exclusion Unit following its report on Neighbourhood Renewal, published its report on "Building Learning Communities". The Team considered how schools could be used to engage the community, drawing in greater support and making their facilities available to more people. It made 32 recommendations under two broad headings: extending services offered by schools; and improving school community links. We are considering how to implement the Team's recommendations.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of specialist schools make use of their right to select up to 10 per cent. of their pupils by aptitude. [127072]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We do not have figures on the percentage of specialist schools which make use of the 10 per cent. aptitude selection arrangement. Information about this is now being collected within the schools' progress reports. From a questionnaire sent to the first 238 specialist schools we know that 7 per cent. of the 142 schools which responded select some of their pupils by aptitude.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many specialist schools have been set up since 1997; how many have opted to select 10 per cent. of their intake by aptitude; and if he will list each of those schools and their local education authority. [126905]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In May 1997, there were 181 specialist schools. A further 222 specialist schools have become operational since then. We do not have figures on the percentage of specialist schools which select 10 per cent. of their intake by aptitude. Information about this is now being collected within the schools' progress reports. From a questionnaire sent to the first 238 specialist schools we know that 7 per cent. of the 142 schools which responded select some of their pupils by aptitude.

  Class Sizes (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average class size was in secondary schools in East Sussex in each year since 1979. [126299]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The requested information on class sizes in maintained secondary schools in East Sussex local education authority area is shown in the following table.
  177W
  In England, maintained secondary classes are already much smaller than primary classes, with around five fewer pupils on average. The average class size in maintained secondary schools in England in January 2000 was 22.0, compared to an average of 27.1 pupils per class in maintained primary schools. It is also worth considering the secondary class size figures published on 12 April in the Statistical First Release "Class sizes in maintained schools in England: January 2000", which showed a rise in class sizes under the previous Government—in 1990 the average class size in maintained secondary schools in England was 20.3.

  In the Budget, secondary headteachers received between £30,000 and £50,000 each to spend as they choose. If they spent it on teachers, it is estimated that this would reduce the pupil:teacher1 ratio in secondary schools by 0.4.
  1Pupil:teacher ratios (PTRs) within maintained secondary schools relate the overall number of pupils in these schools to the full-time equivalent number of qualified teachers employed in these schools.

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained secondary schools in the local education authority areas of East Sussex and Brighton: 1979 to 2000

  Position as at January

  East Sussex1

  Brighton1

  East Sussex1

  20003

  22.1

  22.3

  n/a

  1999

  22.1

  22.0

  n/a

  1998

  21.4

  22.3

  n/a

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  21.4

  1996

  n/a

  n/a

  21.1

  1995

  n/a

  n/a

  21.3

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  21.0

  1993

  n/a

  n/a

  20.1

  1992

  n/a

  n/a

  20.8

  1991

  n/a

  n/a

  21.0

  1990

  n/a

  n/a

  20.8

  1989

  n/a

  n/a

  20.9

  Difference between budgeted spend and education SSA 1995–96 to 1999–2000

  £million

  LEA

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Camden

  0.6

  5.2

  3.9

  3.5

  2.3

  City of London

  2.1

  2.3

  2.3

  1.8

  1.1

  Greenwich

  -2.3

  3.7

  -0.6

  -0.8

  0.6

  Hackney

  8.2

  10.6

  7.2

  2.5

  -1.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5.3

  8.4

  6.8

  6.3

  5.0

  Islington

  2.3

  2.5

  3.5

  2.0

  0.3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  9.5

  14.0

  16.3

  12.3

  12.4

  Lambeth

  3.8

  9.8

  4.2

  2.6

  3.6

  Lewisham

  1.6

  3.8

  3.3

  -0.3

  0.0

  Southwark

  -0.8

  3.8

  2.0

  0.4

  3.9

  Tower Hamlets

  5.5

  9.7

  1.8

  1.5

  -0.4

  Wandsworth

  2.7

  5.3

  0.5

  1.3

  -1.0

  Westminster

  9.0

  14.5

  9.7

  10.6

  8.7

  Barking and Dagenham

  6.3

  4.9

  2.8

  2.3

  1.7

  Barnet

  6.8

  9.6

  5.4

  7.6

  6.5

  Bexley

  -4.5

  -3.4

  -4.5

  -3.3

  -3.7

  Brent

  -10.8

  -6.2

  -3.2

  -3.9

  -4.4

  Bromley

  8.5

  2.4

  7.6

  -2.1

  -4.0

  Croydon

  5.3

  10.0

  7.3

  2.9

  0.6

  Ealing

  0.3

  3.5

  5.9

  2.1

  0.3

  Enfield

  1.0

  3.3

  0.5

  -1.0

  -0.2

  Haringey

  7.8

  8.0

  1.7

  0.3

  0.0

  Harrow

  6.4

  7.4

  5.0

  2.8

  2.7

  Havering

  1.7

  -0.3

  0.0

  2.6

  -0.5

  Hillingdon

  -1.7

  -0.4

  -1.4

  -2.1

  -0.9

  Hounslow

  -0.8

  -0.7

  -2.9

  -2.7

  -2.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  1.4

  1.4

  0.2

  0.4

  0.9

  Merton

  0.1

  1.2

  -0.1

  0.1

  -2.4

  178W

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained secondary schools in the local education authority areas of East Sussex and Brighton: 1979 to 2000

  Position as at January

  East Sussex1

  Brighton1

  East Sussex1

  1988

  n/a

  n/a

  20.7

  1987

  n/a

  n/a

  21.4

  1986

  n/a

  n/a

  21.7

  1985

  n/a

  n/a

  21.2

  1984

  n/a

  n/a

  21.8

  1983

  n/a

  n/a

  21.9

  1982

  n/a

  n/a

  21.8

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  21.9

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  22.0

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  22.1

  1After local government reorganization

  2Before local government reorganization

  1Provisional

  Note:

  n/a = not applicable

  SSAs
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by LEA in England the amount each local authority spent on education above its education SSA for each of the past five years. [126906]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows by LEA the amount in £ million by which each authority budgeted above or below its education SSA for the years 1995–96 to 1999–2000. Budget figures are taken from Local Authority Revenue Account (RA) returns, and include a centrally calculated estimate of the amount of education related capital expenditure from the revenue account (CERA). Figures for 2000–01 are not yet available: in this and future years, budget data which are more precisely comparable to education SSA will be available from the section 52 returns submitted by local education authorities, including their own estimate of CERA.
  179W

  Difference between budgeted spend and education SSA 1995–96 to 1999–2000

  £ million

  LEA

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Newham

  -8.6

  -9.4

  -6.2

  0.3

  -4.5

  Redbridge

  1.6

  0.8

  -1.6

  -1.2

  -3.3

  Richmond upon Thames

  3.7

  3.9

  4.0

  2.8

  0.8

  Sutton

  0.9

  1.3

  0.8

  1.6

  -0.2

  Waltham Forest

  0.3

  2.0

  3.1

  1.9

  -0.7

  Bedfordshire

  -2.2

  -0.3

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire 1997

  —

  —

  2.5

  0.1

  -0.3

  Luton 1997

  —

  —

  3.0

  3.0

  3.4

  Berkshire

  -2.9

  -8.2

  -3.9

  —

  —

  West Berkshire (Newbury) 1998

  —

  —

  —

  1.6

  0.0

  Bracknell Forest 1998

  —

  —

  —

  -0.2

  0.0

  Windsor and Maidenhead 1998

  —

  —

  —

  0.8

  14.8

  Reading 1998

  —

  —

  —

  4.0

  0.6

  Slough 1998

  —

  —

  —

  -5.0

  -1.7

  Wokingham 1998

  —

  —

  —

  -0.7

  1.2

  Buckinghamshire

  1.4

  1.2

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire 1997

  —

  —

  8.8

  -1.0

  -1.4

  Milton Keynes 1997

  —

  —

  -5.3

  -3.7

  -5.4

  Cambridgeshire

  17.5

  7.7

  10.1

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire 1998

  —

  —

  —

  10.8

  3.9

  Peterborough 1998

  —

  —

  —

  -0.8

  1.5

  Essex

  8.1

  6.5

  7.3

  —

  —

  Essex 1998

  —

  —

  —

  5.2

  -1.0

  Southend on Sea 1998

  —

  —

  —

  -0.1

  0.8

  Thurrock 1998

  —

  —

  —

  -1.4

  -0.4

  Hertfordshire

  8.6

  10.6

  14.0

  3.4

  -1.4

  Kent

  -3.6

  3.1

  -9.2

  —

  —

  Kent 1998

  —

  —

  —

  -3.5

  -5.0

  Medway 1998

  —

  —

  —

  -5.2

  -1.1

  Norfolk

  20.7

  19.9

  13.0

  10.9

  5.4

  Oxfordshire

  0.1

  2.6

  0.5

  -6.3

  -3.4

  Suffolk

  13.8

  11.8

  8.9

  7.4

  6.9

  Surrey

  7.4

  14.5

  6.7

  -2.7

  -2.8

  East Sussex

  8.8

  10.5

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex 1997

  —

  —

  5.4

  1.1

  1.6

  Brighton and Hove 1997

  —

  —

  8.7

  4.5

  1.3

  West Sussex

  15.5

  5.9

  9.3

  11.5

  6.5

  Avon

  40.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bath and NE Somerset 1996

  —

  8.0

  6.6

  6.5

  6.0

  Bristol 1996

  —

  20.5

  16.7

  16.2

  16.4

  South Gloucestershire 1996

  —

  9.0

  9.1

  7.7

  5.6

  North Somerset 1996

  —

  7.3

  6.8

  6.7

  3.0

  Cornwall

  7.4

  0.0

  -1.3

  -0.5

  1.8

  Devon

  1.9

  0.2

  5.0

  —

  —

  Devon 1998

  —

  —

  —

  0.7

  -0.9

  City of Plymouth 1998

  —

  —

  —

  0.0

  -0.6

  Torbay 1998

  —

  —

  —

  -1.5

  -0.5

  Dorset

  15.5

  4.5

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset 1997

  —

  —

  14.5

  2.6

  11.0

  Bournemouth 1997

  —

  —

  3.6

  2.1

  1.6

  Poole 1997

  —

  —

  1.3

  1.7

  3.5

  Gloucestershire

  0.9

  1.0

  -2.3

  -3.6

  -3.4

  Hampshire

  43.0

  22.9

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire 1997

  —

  —

  21.9

  9.4

  6.2

  Portsmouth 1997

  —

  —

  —

  2.2

  1.1

  Southampton 1997

  —

  —

  2.5

  6.6

  3.0

  Hereford and Worcester

  -2.1

  -0.1

  5.7

  —

  —

  Herefordshire 1998

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  -0.6

  Worcestershire 1998

  —

  —

  —

  0.0

  -2.1

  Isles of Scilly

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  0.6

  1.5

  0.7

  0.5

  0.4

  Somerset

  15.1

  7.4

  15.3

  9.9

  10.3

  Wiltshire

  12.4

  9.8

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire 1997

  —

  —

  7.2

  2.5

  1.6

  Swindon (Thamesdown) 1997

  —

  —

  -1.6

  -3.0

  -2.1

  Birmingham

  29.2

  26.0

  26.0

  36.3

  40.2

  Coventry

  14.6

  12.5

  13.8

  9.8

  15.6

  Derbyshire

  20.1

  16.1

  0.0

  —

  —

  Derbyshire 1997

  —

  0.0

  8.9

  8.6

  5.4

  City of Derby 1997

  —

  0.0

  -0.7

  -1.3

  -1.2

  Dudley

  8.7

  8.0

  10.1

  8.4

  11.0

  Leicestershire

  11.6

  11.9

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire 1997

  —

  —

  7.1

  10.2

  8.2

  Leicester City 1997

  —

  —

  -1.8

  -2.5

  -2.9

  180W 181W

  Difference between budgeted spend and education SSA 1995–96 to 1999–2000

  £ million

  LEA

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Rutland 1997

  —

  0.0

  0.6

  0.2

  1.4

  Lincolnshire

  21.8

  15.9

  16.0

  5.7

  5.0

  Northamptonshire

  7.0

  4.8

  1.0

  -3.1

  1.8

  Nottinghamshire

  26.8

  17.3

  20.1

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire 1998

  —

  —

  —

  18.4

  24.1

  City of Nottingham 1998

  —

  —

  —

  -5.9

  -3.9

  Staffordshire

  12.3

  9.3

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire 1997

  —

  —

  0.5

  4.1

  3.5

  Stoke on Trent 1997

  —

  —

  1.2

  -0.2

  0.1

  Warwickshire

  8.4

  6.7

  10.1

  11.0

  5.8

  Sandwell

  6.9

  10.0

  6.1

  6.1

  4.8

  Shropshire

  9.5

  4.7

  5.3

  —

  —

  Shropshire 1998

  —

  —

  —

  4.8

  3.6

  Telford and Wrekin 1998

  —

  —

  —

  -3.7

  -1.1

  Solihull

  7.4

  6.6

  4.2

  2.6

  -1.0

  Walsall

  4.3

  7.0

  3.8

  2.3

  -0.7

  Wolverhampton

  5.5

  9.3

  7.3

  5.8

  9.2

  Barnsley

  0.4

  -1.0

  -3.0

  -2.9

  -2.7

  Bradford

  -5.8

  -3.9

  -6.2

  -6.4

  -4.9

  Calderdale

  2.6

  1.8

  2.1

  1.0

  0.7

  Doncaster

  1.6

  1.9

  4.5

  -0.6

  -1.4

  Kirklees

  10.3

  12.2

  0.6

  1.7

  2.3

  Leeds

  42.1

  25.0

  34.2

  18.3

  14.2

  North Yorkshire 1996

  20.3

  2.0

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire 1997

  —

  —

  15.2

  12.9

  12.8

  York 1996

  —

  -0.6

  4.9

  3.1

  4.6

  Rotherham

  0.8

  -0.2

  -3.5

  -4.5

  -2.2

  Sheffield

  9.6

  -0.8

  1.3

  0.1

  0.0

  Wakefield

  6.0

  3.5

  -0.7

  0.7

  0.5

  Cleveland

  3.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hartlepool 1996

  —

  -0.1

  -1.4

  -0.8

  0.4

  Middlesbrough 1996

  —

  -0.5

  -3.2

  -4.3

  -3.2

  Redcar and Cleveland 1996

  —

  -1.3

  -0.6

  -0.2

  -0.1

  Stockton on Tees 1996

  —

  -0.6

  -0.5

  0.8

  1.5

  Durham

  13.3

  6.8

  —

  —

  —

  Durham 1997

  —

  0.0

  10.5

  10.8

  11.0

  Darlington 1997

  —

  0.0

  -0.5

  -0.4

  -0.6

  Northumberland

  6.9

  5.4

  -0.8

  -0.6

  0.9

  East Riding of Yorkshire 1996

  —

  11.2

  9.2

  7.9

  7.8

  Kingston upon Hull 1996

  —

  3.4

  0.4

  1.1

  1.2

  North Lincolnshire 1996

  —

  9.2

  4.9

  2.3

  3.8

  North East Lincolnshire 1996

  —

  -1.7

  -0.5

  0.8

  1.9

  Gateshead

  7.7

  7.6

  7.4

  5.6

  3.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  4.1

  12.8

  18.1

  17.1

  10.4

  North Tyneside

  3.6

  3.2

  4.8

  3.7

  2.8

  South Tyneside

  3.6

  1.3

  -1.1

  -1.8

  0.5

  Sunderland

  3.1

  -1.3

  0.4

  -3.0

  -0.5

  Bolton

  6.2

  5.0

  2.5

  1.8

  1.6

  Bury

  7.4

  6.7

  4.3

  1.0

  1.5

  Cheshire

  23.0

  20.3

  21.6

  —

  —

  Cheshire 1998

  —

  —

  —

  23.7

  21.1

  Halton 1998

  —

  —

  —

  0.4

  0.4

  Warrington 1998

  —

  —

  —

  0.6

  2.0

  Cumbria

  11.3

  11.5

  11.9

  10.2

  8.1

  Knowsley

  0.7

  -0.3

  1.4

  0.2

  0.1

  Lancashire

  36.5

  31.3

  21.4

  —

  —

  Lancashire 1998

  —

  —

  —

  19.6

  16.4

  Blackburn with Darwen 1998

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  0.5

  Blackpool 1998

  —

  —

  —

  -3.5

  -2.1

  Liverpool

  -2.0

  2.3

  -9.1

  -3.7

  -3.5

  Manchester

  -8.5

  -1.4

  0.9

  -3.3

  0.6

  Oldham

  6.3

  6.7

  5.0

  1.7

  3.4

  Rochdale

  0.4

  2.1

  0.8

  -1.1

  1.9

  Salford

  7.1

  8.2

  10.9

  6.0

  4.8

  Sefton

  7.7

  6.2

  4.5

  3.9

  4.0

  St. Helens

  9.9

  7.1

  3.8

  4.3

  4.2

  Stockport

  9.3

  6.6

  2.6

  4.9

  2.6

  Tameside

  7.9

  2.1

  1.9

  0.7

  -1.3

  Trafford

  6.4

  4.3

  8.8

  8.6

  14.0

  Wigan

  8.3

  7.9

  7.1

  6.7

  6.4

  Wirral

  -0.3

  0.5

  -2.0

  -3.0

  -0.3

  Total

  703.9

  699.3

  611.3

  425.8

  387.7

  182W

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

British Aid Payments
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will in future make British aid payments to recipient countries direct rather than through the European Union institutions.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are obliged by EU treaty to contribute to the EC's development programmes. These are often of poor quality and we are addressing this We restricted the growth of the external assistance EC budget in March 1999, succeeding in holding down growth to 1 per cent for the years 2000–06—in stark contrast to the agreement at the 1992 Edinburgh Council for a 180 per cent increase for 1992–99.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, but it really is not good enough. Is the noble Baroness aware that it takes an average of four and a half years to implement any EU aid programme, between the time it is agreed and the time that aid reaches the recipients? By then, the problem is probably over or the intended recipients are dead. Would it not be much better if British taxpayers' money was responsibly used by the Government rather than given to the treacle-waders in Brussels to dispose of in this incredibly inefficient way?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we recognise the deficiencies in the EC aid programme. We published an 18-point strategy to improve the poverty focus and effectiveness of EC development assistance. We already have a large bilateral programme; however, we recognise that our leverage as a development and aid donor is much increased through our multilateral programmes. The EC is one of the largest multilateral donors in the world, and we see our commitment as being to improve the European Union so that poverty focus and effectiveness are increased.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, the Edinburgh Council agreement was obviously a great mistake. Will the Minister confirm that something like 30 per cent of our total aid programme is now siphoned through Brussels—in a programme that matches the CAP in incompetence if not corruption? Is it not time that the wishes of the Secretary of State to repatriate the programme and to bring it under British
148
administration and British priorities should now be carried through, in spite of whatever the treaties have said?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct: 30 per cent of our development assistance programme goes through the European Union. That is why we have such a strong commitment to trying to improve the programme. We have published institutional strategy papers to cover the range of multilateral donors, including the European Union, the World Bank and UN system. We have made it clear that we want to see improvements in that system. As I said in my original Answer, we feel that the leverage that we are able to apply, both through the European Union process and working in concert with our European Union partners, means that it is important that we improve the effectiveness of the programme rather than withdrawing from it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, would it not be a great mistake to pre-judge the effect of the reforms already identified by our commissioner, Mr Christopher Patten, and which I understand he has already begun to implement?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that there has been a commitment to reform of the EC programmes. We are much encouraged by that. However, we want to see more than just a commitment to reform. We want to see the reforms implemented, and we are pushing for that implementation. Both Commissioner Patten and Commissioner Nielson, who are now the two commissioners with responsibility for development assistance, have shown commitment to the reform.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the rhetorical panoply now deployed by certain English politicians against increasing co-operation between the countries of Europe was once deployed by English politicians against increasing co-operation between the countries that have come to make up Britain? Will the Minister agree that they were wrong once, and may well be wrong again?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have made the Government's position clear. We see our role as being part of the commitment to reforming the European Union programmes. We have published a strategy which makes it very clear what we expect to happen. Some of the reforms are already being taken on board. We want to see much clearer implementation, and an action plan associated with the development policy strategy that has now been developed. Yes, I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we work with other countries on this matter rather than against them.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, if, as Commissioner Patten has said, EU aid is badly managed, less efficient and not in the interest of those who receive it, can the noble Baroness explain what is

149
the leverage that we get through disguising the fact that the aid has come from this country and channelling it through the EU? What is the benefit in that?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the EU programme, of which 30 per cent of our budget forms part, is extremely large. One of the things that we want to see is greater emphasis on the elimination of poverty, which is the focus of our own development programme set out in the White Paper. If greater resources are channelled through the EU to lower income countries to assist in poverty eradication, as we began to see happening in the recent renegotiations on Lomé, for example, clearly that process will be speeded up.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the investigations carried out last year into the whole operation of these funds as administered by the Commission showed widespread fraud and irregularity? Does the Minister agree that for British taxpayers, who contribute £2.5 billion net to the Community, it would be far better for the programme to be repatriated so that we can direct the aid where we want it to go?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that I have already addressed the point. Perhaps I should repeat that member states are now working with the new Commission to stop fraud and strengthen controls. We have been leading that process. We want to ensure that EU funds are spent properly and effectively on development and other programmes. That is the agenda to which the Government have committed themselves, and I believe that it is a good one.

Development Aid: Universal Education
2.44 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
By what criteria the proportion of the overseas development aid budget spent on primary and secondary education is decided; and what proportion they expect to assign to them in each of the next five years.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Department for International Development does not primarily allocate its resources on a sectoral basis. It is committed to the international development target of achieving universal primary education by 2015 and over the past three years has committed £300 million to support the development of UPE programmes. The DfID will continue to give high priority to universal primary education in its bilateral and multilateral programmes.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but does she agree that the prospects for development in much of the world are bleak? While more than 125 million children of primary school age—two-thirds of them girls—are still not in school and there is an adult illiteracy rate of more than 880 million, if we are serious about achieving anything in international co-operation for development, is it not essential that, together with other countries, we turn generalised commitments into specific measurable targets to achieve the goal of universal primary education by 2015?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's analysis of the number of children not in school, a significant proportion of whom are girls, and the high levels of illiteracy. A recent education conference in Dakar re-committed itself to the target of universal primary education, and UNESCO has been given responsibility for co-ordination and ensuring that that target is met. The Department for International Development has taken a sector-wide approach to the whole area of education in the countries in which it works. In the work that we do in those countries we set ourselves measurable targets and are committed to its achievement. We are sure that with political will that target can be achieved.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the expansion of primary education is one of the key criteria for debt cancellation. As the Social Summit is to meet in six days' time in Geneva, at a time of considerable slippage in the HIPC process, does the Minister accept that to expand primary education is an essential element in pursuing debt cancellation? What proposals does the noble Baroness have to assist the primary and secondary education sectors in those countries which apply for HIPC debt relief? Further, can the Minister tell the House what role the British Council will play in this?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is a clear link between the importance of achieving universal primary education and the elimination of poverty. There is also a link between the importance of educating girls and the impact that that has on a number of social development indicators in countries across the world. As to the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, the noble Baroness will be aware that we have fought long and hard for a greater correspondence between countries in receipt of HIPC and a commitment by them to poverty reduction. Those countries must now produce poverty reduction strategies and demonstrate ways in which they will use the money saved through HIPC on areas like health and education. We are entirely committed to that process. Through the Commonwealth debt initiative we have created a greater link between debt relief and education in countries like Jamaica.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I welcome what the Government have achieved under their own debt relief programme, but does the Minister agree that girls in particular find it increasingly difficult to take part in education when governments cannot afford to spend money on primary education? In the light of that, is there not a case for relaxing some of the strict criteria that HIPC imposes, because of the small number of countries that are presently eligible for debt relief under that initiative?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may deal, first, with the number of countries eligible. It is not so much that a small number of countries are eligible but that the process of those countries going through HIPC has slowed down. That is one of the reasons why at the last World Bank/IMF meeting there was a commitment to the creation of an implementation committee to assist with the speeding up of that process.
We prefer to work with countries which have a commitment to putting money into areas like education. We want to work in partnership with those countries because we feel that it is important that the commitment comes from within a country as well as being supported with donor money like ours.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have referred to the education of girls in developing countries. Can the Minister indicate any special initiatives which have been taken by the Government to overcome some of the problems in obtaining education which face girls in developing countries? I refer in particular to secondary education.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have taken a sector-wide approach to education. We are looking at primary education. In some countries we are looking also at secondary education. We are also considering the importance of training and developing the skills of teachers. If there are no teachers the skills cannot be developed.
Educating girls, even just at primary level, is the most effective development intervention any country can make. We have been encouraging countries such as Uganda, Kenya, Ghana, India and Bangladesh to take specific initiatives to target girls' education.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of PLAN International, an NGO working in the field. Does the Minister agree that there is merit in working with NGOs—DfID is very good about it—which work in a wider field? NGOs can look not only at education but also at the wider issues such as the need for water or food. Children may be prevented from receiving education because they are needed to help with other practical issues.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in our bilateral programmes on education we work with governments and with NGOs precisely because, as the noble Baroness indicates, NGOs on the ground can work
152
across a range of sectors. They can pull communities together in a beneficial way. They can indeed be beneficial for girls and boys in those communities.

New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, Section 74
2.52 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have not yet been able to make the appropriate orders in pursuance of their undertaking to implement Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, on 5th April Ministers announced the Government's intention to implement Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act to charge utilities for overstaying. We are now working with utilities and highways authorities to develop a scheme and we expect to have it ready by the end of July. We intend to consult on the enabling regulations over the summer and lay them for affirmative resolution before the end of this Session. The scheme will then be started as soon as possible provided, of course, that Parliament approves the regulations.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I must confess that I am slightly grateful. Does, the Minister understand how welcome his presence is at the Dispatch Box today, indicating just a tiny bit of progress and demonstrating that his noble friend Lord Sainsbury meant what he said on 5th April? It is a great relief to us all.
I ask a very simple question. I try to understand the ways of government. Of course, it may be through old age that I am not so quick as I was, but for the life of me I cannot understand why it is that governments who seek to be popular do not take every opportunity, and the powers currently available, to discourage those who persistently make a mess of our roads and a nuisance of themselves?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, before I answer the noble Lord, perhaps I may congratulate those noble Lords who today succeeded in navigating the roadworks of Westminster encountered when cycling from my ministry to Parliament.
I agree with the noble Lord. This matter excites exasperation in all of us. However, the response must be in keeping with the problem. There are differing opinions on the situation. Our consultation received 160 responses: 48 per cent were in favour of full lane rental, as is the noble Lord. However, 32 per cent were against. As we go through the consultative period we

153
want to hear the views of the utilities and those who might have the charges passed to them, as well as the concerns of the highway authorities and others.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that nothing is more infuriating than for one set of streetworks to be completed by one utility and for the same stretch of road then to be dug up by another? Does the noble Lord welcome the initiative by the Central London Partnership taken this morning in the publication of its document Making Streetworks Work which recommends that in future there should be trench sharing rather than trench warfare?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we welcome the various initiatives taken in this area, in particular any initiative which would clear the flow of traffic in central London. The campaign to which my noble friend refers aims to ensure that when the principal routes in central London are being worked on, alternative routes must be kept clear. I believe that this affects 120 key roads in London. Neighbouring authorities and utilities will have to ensure that they keep the same routes free of major works when other major works are being undertaken in the vicinity. Ideally, they should aim to avoid digging up a road again for at least a year after any major works.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, will the Government consider compelling hole diggers to meet the cost of traffic wardens or some form of traffic control to relieve the type of congestion which one saw this morning at the important junction at Gloucester Road? Two totally unrelated contractors succeeded in nullifying the effect of the entire lighting system.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I take the point about intelligent deployment of any moneys raised in the charging packages. A key element of the package that we hope to introduce under Section 74 would be the level of charges. It has been suggested that the illustrative charges might be £500 per day for traffic-sensitive streets and perhaps £100 on other roads. Another option is perhaps to double those figures in central London. Those charges have to be viewed against the turnover of the utilities involved and whether they would be passed on to consumers. Noble Lords may be assured that highway authorities are able to keep charges from Section 74 schemes and could deploy them, therefore, as the noble Lord suggests. However, it is worth remembering that if the scheme is effective, the income should be small.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, the Minister's words seem like a breath of fresh air. Can the noble Lord say why more intensive information has not been given and followed with regard to the technology which uses a microprocess to lay the cables, which would otherwise disturb our roads? The process
154
already exists. It is widely used in Canada. Only a keyhole, as it were, has to be dug. What advances are being made in that area?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I cannot tell your Lordships what advances are being made in that form of technology. However, I shall make inquiries and report back.
We have a new form of notification where the utilities are expected to send via the Internet notices of works to the highway authorities involved. It is known as electronic transfer of notices or, in an acronym which will sound familiar to some, ETON.

HIPC Initiative: Okinawa Summit
3 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they expect in the heavily indebted poor countries initiative at the G8 Summit in Okinawa.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, debt is an important issue on the Okinawa Summit agenda. Heads of Government plan to review and encourage progress on the HIPC debt relief initiative with a view to meeting the target set at last year's Cologne Summit of seeing three-quarters of eligible countries receiving debt relief by the end of this year. The UK Government remain committed to this target and will continue to do all they can to ensure that these countries receive the debt relief they so urgently need.
The UK has taken a leading role in the development of the HIPC debt relief initiative and our bilateral policy of 100 per cent debt forgiveness underlines our commitment.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reaffirming the Government's intentions on the HIPC process, although they still fall well short of the 100 per cent target agreed at Cologne. Would he agree that it is time to turn our attention to future World Bank lending? For instance, under its new country assistance strategy, the World Bank is embarking on a 1 billion dollar loan for Tanzania which merely replaces the debt relief of 1 billion dollars that Tanzania has already received. What is the guarantee that the Bank has a new lending policy which will ensure that future loans are based on sustainable strategies, especially in agriculture?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his recognition of the outstanding role of the UK Government in these matters. The new lending that is proposed for Tanzania will be on highly concessionary terms. It will be related not only to industrial projects but on the basis of Tanzania's poverty reduction strategy paper. My noble friend Lady Amos referred to that in

155
response to an earlier Question. Therefore, the loan will be for projects such as agriculture, health, rural roads and water.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's comment about the UK's leading role and its policy of 100 per cent debt forgiveness, how many countries have received debt cancellation from the British Government under the policy of cancellation of all debts owed to the UK by developing countries? Furthermore, can he tell the House how much debt has been cancelled by the British Government in each case?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should have to produce a large table to answer that question in detail, but I can say that our contribution to the HIPC trust fund is the largest in the world, at 350 million dollars. All the G7 countries have agreed to follow our example, with 100 per cent relief on bilateral aid. That is not a bad record.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, the Churches are highly appreciative of the lead taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, there have been disturbing reports that the high hopes set for the G8 Summit will not be achieved. Are there serious obstacles to achieving the target and, if so, what might they be?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the first obstacle was to get the item on the agenda. Our officials working on the agenda have overcome that. As I indicated in my Answer, it is now agreed that the item will play an important part on the agenda. Japan, in particular, as host country has made a commitment to that. We shall have to wait and see how the negotiations progress at Okinawa, but I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we are pushing hard for a better outcome from HIPC 2.
Lord Judd: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the urgency of the situation is underlined by the consistent fall in levels of development assistance from the wealthy countries of the world, with the honourable exception of the United Kingdom and the lead given by the DfID? In those circumstances, is there not something despicable about the wealthy nations of the world meeting to discuss how they can shore up their wealth without falling in behind the lead given by the Chancellor and others on what we should be doing together to fulfil our responsibilities in the wider world?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not for me to criticise other countries in the way in which they approach the G8 Summit. Of course they come with their own motivation, and our role is to pursue, and to encourage them to pursue, a firm and effective strategy for the reduction of world poverty. After all, it was the Labour Government who pushed for the adoption of HIPC 2, which now covers 38 countries and a total of 100 billion dollars. That is no mean achievement.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, will the Government consider pushing for a change of rules for the World
156
Bank and the IMF so that they may consider changing from loans, even on a concessionary basis, to grants for social spending? Some countries—for instance, Haiti—have unsustainable debt and they will never be able to repay even the most lenient concessionary loans.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there will always be a role for grants, particularly for disaster relief. Indeed, referring back to an earlier Question, the European Commission makes a considerable number of grants for this purpose. I believe that loans will always have a major role to play because they enable the provision of relief earlier than would otherwise be possible.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on their excellent record on debt relief, but would he not agree that while 600 million people live in 40 HIPC countries, many billions living in other developing countries rely heavily on concessionary aid? Would he further agree that ii: is extremely important that while the debt initiative must be properly financed, it should not be an excuse for OECD countries to reduce the rest of their development assistance and thus rob Peter to pay Paul?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those are wise words from my noble friend.

Alliance & Leicester Group Treasury plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Transport Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I explained the background to the Motion.
It has been agreed through the usual channels that it would be advantageous to commit the Bill to the Moses Room for a single day, specifically to allow the government amendments to be inserted into the Bill. Once this has been done, the Bill will be reprinted as amended and recommitted in its entirety to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Bill which is considered in Committee of the Whole House will therefore be a clean copy incorporating all the government amendments. It will then be open to your Lordships to move amendments to the Bill in the usual way.
Although the purpose of the Motion is to allow government amendments to be inserted, the Motion does not prevent other amendments from being tabled. However, I would urge those of your Lordships who have already tabled amendments to consider

157
withdrawing them before the Marshalled List for the Grand Committee is printed and retabling them for the Committee of the Whole House. This can be done very simply by talking to the Public Bill Office and it would assist with the practicalities of reprinting the Bill for the Committee of the Whole House.
I should be happy to talk to any of your Lordships who are affected by the arrangement and the Government Whips Office is also happy to provide advice and assistance on this subject. The purpose of the Motion is to allow the Bill to be handled in a way which will make an effective and efficient use of the time of the House.
Moved, That the order of commitment of 5th June be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee; that the Bill as amended in the Grand Committee be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; and that the Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House of 7th June (order of consideration of clauses and Schedules) be instead an Instruction to the Grand Committee. —(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I want to congratulate the Minister on his well placed sense of modesty and shyness in seeking to handle a very awkward stage of a very clumsy Bill in a reasonably delicate fashion without revealing the full horror to an unnecessary degree of public examination and perhaps even slight distaste and disapproval.
At the same time, I should not like to leave my noble friends on the Front Bench out of the torrent of goodwill which is proceeding from my lips. I congratulate them on their generosity, even if I believe that on this occasion they may rather have overdone it and been a little too generous where the deserts were not all that obvious.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister replies, for the convenience of the House can he inform us how many government amendments are to be put down which necessitate this rather unusual move? After all, a great deal of time has been spent on the Bill in the other place and we have already spent one day debating it here. Can he tell us how many amendments necessitate this strange idea?
Lord Henley: My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I may say a word or two, partly in response to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peyton. The Minister is right to say that this matter was agreed following discussions through the usual channels. We agreed to it with some disquiet, if I may express it that way, because it is not the ideal way in which to deal with the Bill.
The simple fact is that far too many Bills are coming from the Government. There are far too many government amendments, and one suspects that that is because the Bills are thoroughly badly drafted. The fault does not lie with the draftsman but with Ministers
158
who obviously give inadequate instructions to the draftsman to ensure that Bills are right in the first place.
Therefore, can the Minister give us an assurance that no further government amendments will be put down following those tabled at this early stage? Secondly, we all accept that the Moses Room is not always the ideal place in which to deal with this type of business. If, on the day that is eventually chosen for the Bill to go to the Moses Room, more Peers wish to take part than wish to discuss whatever the business may be in the House—this may be more a question for the Government Chief Whip—perhaps at that stage the two pieces of legislation could be swapped round.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords are making too heavy weather of this matter and looking a gift horse in the mouth. As I understand it, such a move would not set a precedent. It has been done before, and I look upon it as a means of simplifying the debating procedure.
Noble Lords may make points about whose convenience is best served. I believe that it is the convenience of the House. We will have a clear run at what I understand the Government consider to be a tidy process. Noble Lords have sat in this House through Committee stages of Bills which have been a mixture of private initiatives, official opposition and official government. My understanding of the proscriptions that exist on business in the Moses Room is that there will be no inhibition on any individual to move in or out of the Moses Room and no one's rights will be infringed. The procedure appears to provide a tidy way of making progress. I shall listen, as will others, to what the Minister has to say. However, I look upon the move as a benefit to the House.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, it is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is right when he says that this move is for the benefit of the House as a whole. However, that is with the proviso that the House has plenty of time to absorb what takes place in the Moses Room. Those of us who have worked in this building for a number of years know that Bills can be changed out of all recognition when government amendments have been tabled.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that a reasonable gap will occur between the Moses Room procedures and the return of the Bill to the House. It seems to me that the two-weekends rule provides a sensible way in which to approach the matter. I hope that, having taken his instructions from the Chief Whip, the Minister will be able to tell us that the two-weekends rule will apply between discussion of the Bill in the Moses Room and its return to the Floor of the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Jopling. I speak as an unimportant Back-Bencher. However, Back-Benchers are concerned about what happens and, if government amendments are to be brought forward, we should be

159
given notice. I know that my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip was reluctant to accept the proposal. As I understand it, no agreement was reached as to the way in which the government amendments would be dealt with. Therefore, from these Back Benches I support what was said by my noble friend Lord Jopling.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I am unable to state exactly how many government amendments will be tabled. I can assure noble Lords that, for my liking, there will be too many. No doubt there will be the usual profusion of technicalities which nowadays seem to cluster around every Bill. We hope that by dealing with those in the Moses Room, much of the clutter will be cleared out of the way before the Bill reaches its Committee stage in the House. That would allow us to have a clearer and better debate on the underlying issues that your Lordships may want to address at greater length.
As to whether a reasonable gap will follow our deliberations in the Moses Room, I can assure the House that the Bill will be reprinted the following morning. However, I am unable to confirm that two clear weekends will follow that. But I hope that noble Lords will feel that sufficient time is available in which to address the issues that I shall introduce in amendments.
I accept in good part the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on the elegance of what is being suggested. However, as my noble friend Lord Graham said, it has been done before. When we dealt with the Reserve Forces Bill in 1996 the Opposition neither moved nor spoke to amendments in an attempt to allow the passage of that legislation. Although I should be delighted to accept his congratulations, I shall direct them towards my Chief Whip, whose ingenuity knows no bounds.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Bill
3.17 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Terrorism: interpretation]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where—

(a) the action falls within subsection (1A),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(1A) Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) endangers a person's life,

160

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(1B) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (1A) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, perhaps I may apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Bassam, who has taken the Bill through the House thus far. He will of course be in his place at Third Reading. He is not here because he has been asked to represent the Home Office today in Charleroi in Belgium. Before he agreed to do so, he sought the permission of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. The House will be interested to hear that he was granted that permission.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I confirm that it seemed to me to be in the national interest that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, should be about his duties as the Minister with responsibility for football hooligans, even though it meant that other Ministers had to look after the Terrorism Bill.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. Perhaps he teaches some of his Front Bench a lesson in manners. I know not.
I have had placed in the Printed Pa per Office and handed to opposition spokesmen the definition of terrorism that would result if the government amendments to Clause 1 and other clauses were accepted.
I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 24 and 49, as well as the others grouped with them. In the light of the debates on Second Reading and in Committee in your Lordships' House, we have looked again at the definition of terrorism in Clause 1. We have always said that we were prepared to listen to concerns raised about the definition and we have tabled amendments in response to two specific: lines of argument. I hope that they will find favour with the House.
The first change that we propose addresses action designed seriously to interfere with or disrupt an electronic system. It is included to ensure that serious disruption to computer systems to advance a political, religious or ideological cause is covered. Many noble Lords from all sides pressed us during earlier stages of the Bill to take that step, particularly in the wake of recent events. Our amendment is an important improvement to the Bill. As a consequence, the amendments to Clause 113 and Schedule 9 also add offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to the list of scheduled offences in Schedule 9, so that those offences in Northern Ireland can be treated in the same way as other offences that terrorists commit.
We have also introduced an explicit requirement that for an action to be considered terrorism its purpose must, in most circumstances, be to intimidate the public or influence a government. The exception is when firearms or explosives are used. We have provided that to ensure that, for example, assassinations for political or other purposes are

161
definitely covered. Of course, normally the terrorist use of firearms or explosives is a wicked attempt to put the public at fear, and often to influence a government as well, but we do not want the police to feel hindered in any way from acting in situations that most, if not all of us would regard as terrorism—such as assassinations—because it was not clear that either of those elements was present.
I hope that the introduction of this second new element to the definition will be welcome. Many have commented that our definition was seriously flawed because it lacked an explicit link with the concept of terror. That has been rectified. I should add in passing that we have moved, as some had suggested, from speaking of serious violence to serious damage to property. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, as Amendment No. 3 is also being spoken to and is in this group, I must point out that if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 stands in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who cannot be with us this afternoon. Those who have looked at the amendments will see that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are remarkably similar. The noble and learned Lord and I think that the government amendment is entirely satisfactory and will meet the wishes that were expressed earlier in our debates.
The Minister has drawn attention to some of the changes in the definition of terrorism that we and others asked for, starting with the insertion of terror and intimidation. One of the extraordinary features of the Bill's original definition of terrorism was that it did not include terror. I am glad to say that it is now rightly included. The amendment also extends the definition to cover what is known in the jargon as cyberterrorism—the destruction of electronic systems. That is very important, because great damage can be caused to public life and the public can be held to ransom by computer hacking of one kind or another. Terrorists have already begun to do that and may do so a great deal more in the future.
It is also clear from how the amendment is inserted in the Bill that terrorism involving overseas countries and governments is included. That is also important. We do not want the United Kingdom to be the base from which terrorists operate against foreign governments in pursuit of foreign aims.
Amendment No. 49 rightly brings offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 committed in Northern Ireland into the list of scheduled offences that can be dealt with by the Diplock courts and all the associated machinery, for as long as it is necessary. Financial rackets and rackets involving computers can be just as damaging as bombs and guns in the hands of terrorists in Northern Ireland. Given the difficulties
162
that there have been in courts in Northern Ireland in the past, it is important that those offences should be included in the list of scheduled offences.
I am grateful to the Government for amending the definition of terrorism along the lines suggested in earlier debates. I support Amendment No. 1 and the others being discussed with it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we would have given more or less unreserved support to Amendment No. 2. I discussed its drafting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. We particularly welcome the introduction of the concept of intimidation as a necessary part of the definition of terrorism.
Our welcome for Amendment No. 1 is more qualified. It is unquestionably an improvement on the original definition, so we do not intend to oppose it, but we find aspects of it distinctly worrying. In particular, it includes actions that may influence the Government without intimidating any section of the public. That may be justified in certain cases, but the amendment is currently too wide. We accept that the definition needs to cover actions that are not directed specifically against the public, such as the assassination of leading members of the Government or people in similar positions, but it needs to be tightened up. I t is difficult to justify treating as terrorism an action that involves serious damage to property if it merely influences the Government and is not likely to intimidate the public. That is particularly relevant when we consider that we may be talking about not just the Government of the United Kingdom, but those overseas.
In principle, we support the exception for the use of firearms or explosives, but it leaves a gap, because it does not cover a situation in which a member of the Government is hijacked and then strangled rather than shot. That is perhaps an unlikely situation, but it is possible.
Our view of this is, therefore, that we cannot give unqualified approval to Amendment No. 1. As I said, we do not intend to oppose it because we regard it as an improvement, but we shall look at it carefully. It is more than likely that we shall want to bring back amendments to the redefined definition on Third Reading in order to be able to have a full debate on the issue. Therefore, for today, I simply say that we do not oppose the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, some of the amendments in this group are in my name. I welcome the progress which the Government have made in producing a better definition of "terrorism".
It is not necessarily perfect. I echo the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that it is quite possible that we should look again at new subsection (1A)(b) which relates to serious damage to property, for the reasons that he has explained. My party and I are not happy with new subsection (1A)(c). We do not like the fact that the provisions include endangering the terrorist's own life. I would describe that as the

163
"Swampy"/Emily Davison situation and it does not seem to me to call for this kind of legislation. When Britons are protesting against something and trying to persuade people to change their views and the law, they should be prepared to sacrifice themselves, if necessary, without that becoming a major offence. If they are risking their own lives, they are already risking a great deal. I do not believe that the Government should take that point of view.
I shall listen to what the Minister has to say when he replies to this part of the debate. But it would certainly he my intention to table an amendment to deal with that at Third Reading.
By listening and talking, the Government have achieved a much better situation than we had at the last stage of the Bill. I congratulate them on that. I support them in principle, although I have reservations on the detail.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful for the government amendments. I noticed that when moving them the noble Lord, Lord Bach, mentioned recent events. Was he referring to the problems with the computers of the national air traffic control which occurred last Saturday? That may have caused some of your Lordships some inconvenience. It certainly caused me a six-hour delay in taking off on an internal flight within this country. Is the noble Lord able to say anything about the causes of those problems and whether they had any connection, however tenuous, with terrorism?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am concerned that one of the serious aspects of life in Northern Ireland is the banishing of families. At the moment, I am glad to say that that is peculiar to Northern Ireland. But it has a terrible effect on a whole group of people.
Does the Minister consider that new subsection (1A)(d) of the government amendment covers that point? If not, I should like to talk to Members on my Front Bench and possibly bring forward an amendment at a later stage. If the Bill already covers that issue, obviously I shall not press it further; but I am concerned about it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to new subsection (1A)(c) which deals with endangering a person's life. That leads one to suppose that a hunger strike could be interpreted as terrorism. When he replies will the Minister confirm whether or not that is so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is not a Bill in which I have taken an interest so far. At this stage, I do not declare a pecuniary interest, but very close to where I live is the site of the Huntingdon Life Sciences Company. The Minister will be aware that there has been an almost permanent gathering of people squatting at the gates of that company. They have been terrorising—and I use my words and not those of anybody else—the staff of that company.
164
Recently that has been taken a further stage and a new phenomenon has arisen in terms of terrorising people. Nowadays, people visit Companies House and they obtain lists of shareholders in particular companies. If a view is taken that, for one reason or another, there is a philosophical objection to the purposes and objectives of the company and the business with which it is involved, those shareholders are terrorised. That may be done through a written letter or, worse, things may be put through their letter boxes or their cars burned.
There may be direct action taken at the gates of a company. The staff of the company may be terrorised by being shouted at or worse; there may be physical damage to property or people's possessions. Even worse, harm may be done to the staff or shareholders of the company. Is such action encompassed within Amendment No. 1?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I too support the government amendments. They are a vast improvement on what had gone before. In particular I note that subsection (1)(b) contains the two little words "or threat". I presume that, by implication, that includes the retention of the means of making a threat valid and effective. Therefore, the retention of arms and munitions falls within the scope of that provision.
There are other minor issues which one could raise but I wish to give broad support to the government amendments.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Government have recognised that there was a problem with the phrase relating to serious violence against persons and property and they have now split that so that the Bill deals with "serious violence" against persons and "serious damage to property".
But on the last occasion on which we discussed this matter, it was pointed out that the phrase "serious violence" occurs only in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. There has been only one case brought under that provision which did not turn on the definition itself. Therefore, the courts will have to start with a blank sheet of paper in interpreting what "serious violence" against persons means; and the same is true, pari passu, of "serious damage" against property. I believe that we are placing an unfair burden on the courts in not spelling out exactly what we mean by either of those phrases.
However, I draw attention to another problem which struck me when I was reading Amendment No. 49. As the Minister pointed out, it makes offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 subject to the special provisions of Part VII of the Bill which provides for non-jury trials on account of the fact that the offences are terrorist-related. Those offences are unauthorised access to a computer either by itself or with a view to committing a further offence, and unauthorised modification. Therefore, that would cover, for example, pure hacking or hacking for the purpose of damaging the computer system, the

165
transmission of a virus, or the use of computers for the purposes of the financial rackets, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred in Northern Ireland.
Can the Minister tell us whether the Bill catches only people who commit those offences within the Province? Computer hacking and computer interference may be committed from anywhere on the globe. Someone may have the intention of using computers for terrorist-related purposes in Northern Ireland but would not be physically located there. Would the provisions of Amendment No. 49 come into play only if the alleged offender was within the territory of Northern Ireland?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I, too, was not going to take part in this. However, I am worried and curious about this amendment, which is in danger of being a catch all amendment. It is rather like that wonderful old phrase in the Army,
"prejudicial to good order and military discipline".
It seems that almost anything, with a certain amount of imagination, can be described as terrorism. I completely understand the difficulty which everybody is in. Terrorism has to be defined. We all recognise it when we see it but, if we are not careful, the definition will be too wide. Perhaps I may leave that view with the Minister. It is a dilemma in which I find myself.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords, as are the Government, for the assistance we have had in attempting to get right this difficult definition. As has been said, it clearly is not an easy task and there are dangers both ways in attempting to do so.
Some noble Lords gave almost unqualified support to our new definition. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for what he said both on behalf of himself and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who was good enough to correspond with my noble friend yesterday and say that he was satisfied with the new Clause 1. That is an important consideration for noble Lords, if one bears in mind the expertise and experience of the noble and learned Lord in this field.
The Government are comforted by the fact that noble Lords around the House feel that this is an improvement—perhaps even a big improvement—on the stab we made at it in the original Bill that came to this House.
A number of questions have been asked which I shall do my best to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked about hunger strikers or the terrorist risking blowing himself up. That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. We do not believe that that would be covered. It would not, by reason only that such a person endangered his own life, fall within what we believe is the obvious sense of subsection (1A)(c). That person would also have to put the public at risk.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a question about recent events which we were all sorry to hear caused him such inconvenience last weekend. The
166
answer to his question as to whether we believe that was linked with terrorism is no. The recent events are apparently considered to be related to that famous animal, "The love bug", which the House knows about. There was no direct connection because there was not believed to be a terrorist motivation. However, considerable thought has been given to the reality of the difficulties last weekend.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked a question about banishing families. A threat of violence may well be involved, coupled with a political motivation. We believe that banishing is caught by the provisions. I hope that that goes some way to satisfying her concern.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about matters close to home. We are aware of a campaign being conducted by animal rights supporters against Huntingdon Life Sciences Company and the criminal activities of a small minority directed at the employees and shareholders. As the noble Baroness will understand, this is an operational matter for the police. They, together with the courts, have the full support of the Government in dealing with those responsible for criminal acts.
Whether that is covered by this definition depends on the nature of the attack. If serious violence was used, the public was put at fear and the motivation was religious, political or ideological, I can tell the noble Baroness that it could be caught by the provisions set out in Clause 1 of the Bill.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and his concern about the definition of the word "serious" connected with the word "violence". It seems to us that this is not a real problem. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is surrounded by noble Lords who have no doubt summed up to juries on the meaning of grievous bodily harm, a phrase used in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. If I remember rightly, judges will sum up grievous bodily harm as meaning really serious bodily harm. There seems to be no difficulty with the courts defining grievous bodily harm, although it is almost lost in the mists of antiquity. I do not believe there will be any problem in sorting out serious violence from what is not serious violence. Magistrates and juries do it every day of their lives.
Perhaps I may reflect on the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and write to him.
We have had a fairly brief debate on this important issue. The Government are grateful for the support they have received. We know that this is not necessarily the end of the story. However, we believe that we have gone a long way towards satisfying the House.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may raise one point. We are all grateful to the Minister for his lengthy and considered reply. However, would he not agree that a hunger strike is a threat of action designed to influence the Government which endangers a person's life? The Minister has not had much time to consider this point,

167
which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and myself. I wonder whether he would agree to look at it again between now and Third Reading and possibly come back to us at that point.
Lord Bach: My Lords, of course we will.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask for clarification. I thank him for the detailed answer he gave about the staff of Huntingdon Life Sciences Company. As I understand it, the Minister said that where serious violence or the threat of serious violence caused distress to the public, it would be caught by the measures contained in Amendment No. 1. Can the Minister tell us whether, for the purposes of Clause 1, members of staff are members of the public?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I hope I was careful in the phrase I used. "If serious violence was used and the public was put at fear" was the expression I used. That includes members of staff. But it must be remembered that the motivation of those who put people at fear and use serious violence must be either religious, political or ideological.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("this section").
Page 1, line 18, at end insert (", and
(d) "the government" means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Proscription]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
("(6) In exercising his powers to proscribe organisations under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must take into account the activities of any organisation engaging in terrorist activities (as defined in this Act) in countries other than the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have just had an interesting debate. But one point worries me in relation to this Bill, which I strongly support. The Bill has evolved from our experience of dealing with local terrorism during the past 30 years, both through legislation and sophisticated intelligence. But the world of terrorism has expanded and become equally sophisticated. In fact, the danger from terrorism today to this nation is considerably more than it was 30 years ago.
As I understand it, this Bill is an attempt to further assist the authorities in preventing terrorism and protecting the people of this country from terrorist atrocities. I do not want to see two classes of terrorism in the Bill. But I want to ensure that there is adequate cover to deal with, and be ready for, the international terrorist.
I hope that the Minister will say that Amendment No. 6 is already covered in the Bill. But I should like to be reassured that in the proscribing of organisations in Schedule 2 there is a bounden duty on the Secretary of State of the day to take note of terrorist organisations which are known throughout the world, which are active in other parts of the world, and which are occasionally listed by other governments, and to make the necessary decisions in the light of that serious appraisal. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I support the amendment. If we expect other countries to co-operate fully in the elimination of terrorism worldwide, we in the United Kingdom must transmit to foreign governments and foreign courts that we are clear-headed about the control of terrorism in our own territory and reassure them that we will co-operate with them in their efforts to eliminate it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it occurs to me that this amendment may not be entirely necessary. I say that because this country ratified a whole number of international covenants attempting to deal with international terrorism. Also, it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to list every organisation which has been involved in terrorism at some time or other and in some part of the world or another. The situation changes frequently and the list would quickly become out of date. That is my view.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I understand the object of the amendment. I am not sure that it is necessary because the Secretary of State's powers are already covered.
I want to make a point that was mentioned in a previous debate; that is, that we are in a murky area when we focus upon acts of terrorism (as defined in the Bill) committed outside this country. One need only think of the ANC during the years of apartheid. Some of my best friends may be regarded as having been guilty of terrorism when they were struggling against the dictatorship of apartheid and found it necessary, with ideological or political motives, to engage in acts which fall within this definition.
I pity the Secretary of State who, at some future date, may have to decide whether or not to add a foreign body, perhaps regarded as freedom fighters by some and terrorists by others, to the list. I can see that, even if we do not accept this amendment, there will be that kind of pressure on future Home Secretaries. I say simply that we are getting into murky waters, though that may be inevitable when one has a Terrorism Bill with extra-territorial scope.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, one does not need to go back in the past to the activities of the ANC to recognise where the difficulties mentioned by my noble friend arise. An example that occurs to me is the Sudan People's Liberation Army. We have dealings at an unofficial level with the SPLA. It is part of the process intended to lead to peace in Sudan between the government and the opposition, which has been

169
demanding self-determination in the south. We have a certain amount of sympathy with those in the south who do not wish to be ruled by a fundamentalist and fanatical regime in Khartoum. Therefore we would not like to see such an organisation proscribed.
I should like to know more about the way in which the powers are to be exercised. I can think of other organisations which we would like to have considered by the Secretary of State which are involved in acts of terrorism overseas with which we do not sympathise and where, in this country, the organisation is involved in fund-raising and the soliciting of support of a political kind. An example I gave at an earlier stage was the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Everybody knows that they collect money in this country. They have an organisation which explicitly claims to be a branch of the LTTE in London. They go round Tamil businesses asking for protection money. They make threats saying that people must subscribe to their cause. Obviously if we taxed them directly about it, they would say that they were collecting the money for the victims of war. One would have to go behind the collections to see what route the money took to produce the flow of weapons which undoubtedly sustains the conflict in northern Sri Lanka.
So there are circumstances where it could be argued that the powers could be used to proscribe an organisation, and that we would be fulfilling our duty to combat international terrorism in that way. But there are other cases where the power should not be exercised because of the political situation in the country where acts which could fall within the definition of this Bill might be committed. I am therefore not entirely happy about leaving a power of this kind in the hands of a Home Secretary who can say in any specific case whether or not an organisation should be proscribed. He would have been given no guidelines by Parliament; in fact, he would have a perfectly free hand as to how proscription was to be carried out.
Obviously, if it was the present Home Secretary, one would be quite happy as to the way in which the power would be exercised. But he will not be there for ever. This legislation will still be on the statute book when an entirely different government come into power. We do not legislate for the exercise of power by the people who are in office at the moment; we have to imagine that at some future date a far more authoritarian government might come into power who would have no sympathy with liberation movements overseas. That is why, to make the power as broad as it is in this Bill and not to place any restrictions on the exercise of it by the Secretary of State would be rather dangerous.
4 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in the two instances he has given. As often happens, it is a question of one man's terrorist being another's freedom fighter. Nevertheless, I hope that some way will be found to recognise that we might have to take such action on new splinter groups of the IRA in the Republic of
170
Ireland, which is another country. It is a problem which needs to be addressed. I agree entirely with the noble Lord on the other instances that he has given.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, we are worrying about the question of definition. Like the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I was brought up to believe that the English language is the richest language in the world. If we cannot define something, no one else can.
Historically, there has been a strange change in the world. At one time we had enemies which were countries and military mights. Suddenly, those enemies were replaced with words ending in "ism"—fundamentalism, communism, terrorism. It would be very helpful to me if someone could define the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.
If one analyses the history of the Commonwealth, one finds that a very large proportion of the Commonwealth entered into a period of what may be defined as "terrorism", when the military were sent in to stabilise a situation, the key terrorist or freedom fighter was arrested, locked up for a while, let out, in democratic elections became head of state, and then appeared on the Commonwealth Christmas card.
For those of us who have come across the Baader-Meinhof, the Brigate Rosse, the Shining Path, it is a matter of definition, but we seem always to end up with the word "fundamentalism". We seem to be seeking an enemy, but we need a definition. The definition used to be available through the Foreign Office. It was able to tell us the countries in which acceptable or unacceptable organisations existed. I am afraid that in British political history we have been as duplicitous as everyone else. One day someone is a terrorist, the next day he is an ally. It is the difference in definition of "freedom fighters" and "terrorism" which causes me concern.
If it is not possible to incorporate it in the Bill, perhaps the Minister would be kind enough, if I write to him, to list the world organisations which the Government currently regard as terrorist and those which they currently regard as freedom fighters.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I am not sure that we would necessarily want to receive such a letter. As your Lordships are well aware and as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has pointed out, this Bill provides for the first time the power to proscribe organisations concerned in terrorism other than that connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Throughout the whole process of this Bill your Lordships have quite rightly taken a very detailed interest in this proposal and have sought to examine in detail the Government's intentions in relation to its use.
I do not believe that anyone has been more assiduous in this endeavour than the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Not only did he raise this issue in Committee on 16th May (Official Report, cols. 250–253) but he has also asked a series of detailed parliamentary Questions on the subject, which my noble friend Lord Bassam answered on 5th June

171
(Official Report, WA cols. 121–122). My noble friend has again highlighted the issue by proposing this amendment today.
Throughout the passage of the Bill we have said, first, that, we are considering which organisations concerned in international terrorism should be added to Schedule 2 and, secondly, that final decisions as to the content of the first order adding international terrorist organisations to Schedule 2 will not be made until the power to make the order is in force. That is because we need to take full account of the circumstances obtaining at that stage—in particular the security assessment.
I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that, in exercising his powers to proscribe organisations, the Secretary of State will, of course, take account of all relevant information, including information available to him about organisations engaging in terrorist activities, as defined in this Bill, in countries other than the United Kingdom. I cannot go further than that. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment is that the Secretary of State will be obliged to consider every organisation throughout the world, which nobody would necessarily consider to be sensible. It is important, however, that I should give a reassurance about including information available to him concerning organisations engaging in terrorist activities in countries other than the United Kingdom.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, we recognise that these are, in his description, "murky waters". We fully support people's right to peaceful protest, where there may be an oppressive regime at home. At the same time, however, we cannot allow the United Kingdom to be a safe haven for terrorists. In this respect, balance is very important.
We have provided a number of safeguards, one of which is that the Attorney-General's consent would be required to prosecute any international cases. We fully recognise the sensitive issues which arise in relation to international cases. We agree that everyone has his own views on who should and should not be proscribed. The Secretary of State will have to consider cases very carefully. His order will have to be approved by an affirmative resolution procedure before anyone is proscribed.
In the light of the reassurances that I have given, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation. I have also heard what noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat Benches have said. In the world in which we are now living, I feel that we can all trust our Home Secretaries of the day, from whatever party, to do what is right so far as terrorism is concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Deproscription: appeal]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Where an order has been made under section 3(3)(a), the organisation, or any person affected by the organisation's proscription, may appeal to the Commission.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 and Amendment No. 31, which is consequential.
The purpose of this group of amendments is to provide for the possibility of an appeal against the making of a proscription order. As the Bill now stands, an organisation which believes that it has been wrongly proscribed has to go through a wholly artificial process of applying for a deproscription order. If that order is refused, it can go through the appeal process to the proscribed organisation's appeal committee and, on a question of law, can to go a higher court, and indeed ultimately to the House of Lords.
As the Bill now stands, if the appeal succeeds and as a result the organisation is deproscribed, arty conviction for membership of that organisation and any forfeiture order made before the date on which the Secretary of State refused to deproscribe stands. So indeed does a conviction or order made where the urgency procedure under Clause 122(5) is used but the order lapses because it is not approved by both Houses of Parliament within 40 days.
This creates a wholly irrational and improper legal situation. It means that even if, on the appeal against the Secretary of State's deproscription order, the appeal committee decides that the organisation ought never to have been proscribed in the first place, a conviction or forfeiture order made as a result of the proscription order would still remain valid.
I introduced an amendment on the same subject at Committee stage which would have deferred the coming into force of the proscription order. I accept that that is not the best way of dealing with it. There may well be cases in which a proscription order should come into effect immediately. If that is not done, there is every likelihood of property disappearing before anyone can lay their hands on it, and there may be very considerable delays if the organisation fully exploits the possibility of delaying the procedure for appeals.
The present amendment does not suspend the operation of the proscription order. However, it does provide for an appeal. As a consequence, if the appeal is allowed, or if the order falls because the urgency procedure has been used and the order is not approved within 40 days, the conviction or forfeiture order made in reliance on that proscription order is automatically quashed and ceases to have effect.
It is surely absurd that a conviction or forfeiture order would be allowed to stand even though the proscription order has been made unreasonably or on the wrong legal basis. Further, the absence of any appeal provision for proscription orders is plainly in breach of natural justice. An organisation is being criminalised without being allowed to be heard in its own defence. I suggest that the fact that this artificial procedure of applying for a deproscription order is

173
possible is no defence to the original breach of the right to natural justice. If an order is allowed to come into force before there is a decision on appeal, I see no reason for the Government to object to conferring a right of appeal against the original proscription order and many reasons why they should allow it. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my name has been attached to these amendments and, therefore, I should like to add a few words to what my noble friend has said on the question of legislative method. When the Human Rights Act comes into force on 2nd October of this year, all existing and future legislation, including this Bill, must, as far as is possible, be read and given effect to in accordance with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.
I should declare a professional interest here. As I am still in practice at the Bar, I suppose that I shall earn money arguing cases under the Human Rights Act. However, if it is possible to persuade the Government to make it fit on the face of the Bill, I should be happy not to earn my living by making this Act fit with convention rights. It seems to me to be in the interests of legal certainty and proportionality, if not in the interests of the legal profession, for us to get the Bill right at this stage.
My noble friend Lord Goodhart referred to natural justice, which is embodied in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Thus there is European natural justice, as well as good old English natural justice. I believe it to be desirable to introduce a right of appeal for all the reasons given by my noble friend but, additionally, so as to avoid unnecessary conflict with convention rights. The last thing I should like to see is a court having to grant a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act because it was found impossible to read and give effect to Clause 5 in accordance with convention rights. I very much hope that those considerations will be taken into account, as well as those outlined by my noble friend Lord Goodhart.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it is most generous but characteristic of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to give up the opportunity of earning legal fees by pointing out that such a problem might arise and might ultimately come before the courts. I have some sympathy with the case put forward by the noble Lord and his noble friend. If these appeals are likely to arise in any event through an attempt to be deproscribed—presumably that can start immediately after the organisation concerned has been proscribed—it might be wise to provide for an appeal procedure in the first place.
However, my caution in this respect arises from the fact that I do not wish to see a situation where some causes which in many cases are deeply offensive to people in this country give rise to a proscription being introduced in respect of a terrorist organisation. That, in turn, could be used as an excuse for an appeal
174
hearing in which the terrorists or their representatives from overseas argue their case in this country in an attempt to justify their actions and thereby gain support. The Secretary of State and the Government could be placed in an awkward situation if we moved forward in the way suggested. But perhaps it is inevitable, given the appeal against a deproscription refusal and the background of the human rights legislation to which the noble Lord drew our attention. It is a dilemma.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, since our discussions on this part of the Bill in Committee, the Government have reflected further on the whole area of proscription. We have concluded that the Bill is right as it stands. I am happy to explain why this is the case, but I should say at the outset of my remarks that we remain unable to accept these amendments. There are two key proposals in these amendments: first, that the Bill should allow for a straight appeal against proscription, as opposed to an appeal against a refusal to deproscribe; and, secondly, that a safeguard should be built in against the abuse of the urgency procedure.
Perhaps I may begin with the issue of appeal against proscription. As my noble friend Lord Bassam said in Committee, the system in the Bill has the advantage that, on receiving an application to deproscribe, the Secretary of State may choose to do so. That would avoid the need for a costly and perhaps lengthy appeal hearing. In explaining how we have arrived at the application, refusal, appeal process, I must emphasise that we are not starting from a blank sheet of paper. In Schedule 2 we have a list of organisations that are already proscribed and in some cases have been proscribed for many years.
However, let us suppose that one of those organisations—perhaps rightly proscribed in the mid-1970s—were to turn away from terrorism at some point in the future. It could happen. In such a case, as my noble friend Lord Bassam said in Committee, an appeal against proscription would not produce the right result because the decision to proscribe was right at the time that it was made. The advantage of the system in the Bill is that the application requires the Secretary of State to make a fresh decision based on the up-to-date situation. It is his assessment at that point in time that is to be reviewed by the commission if the Secretary of State decides to refuse the application.
In recognition of that line of argument, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said in Committee that there might be a time limit of between 14 and 28 days from the initial proscription during which the relevant organisation could appeal. That would not be helpful to any organisation which was concerned in terrorism when it was proscribed but which, more than a month later, changed its spots. In particular, it would not work at all for any of the organisations already listed in Schedule 2. Therefore, for those two categories we would have to retain the system of application, refusal and appeal against refusal for them. That would mean ending up with two parallel systems. As has been

175
observed, the drafting of one system is already complex. Therefore, the drafting of two systems would greatly multiply those complexities. More importantly, as the additional system would work only for newly-proscribed groups, we would not be treating in the same way those organisations already included in Schedule 2 and those to be added to it at a later date. We see it as important that all organisations should be treated in the same way under the Bill.
I have mentioned two practical reasons why we do not favour an appeal against proscription. We need to be able to deal with organisations that change their spots, so we need the application/refusal regime; and we need to treat all organisations in the same way, whether they are already listed in the schedule or are newly proscribed under the Bill. All groups should have the same avenues of appeal open to them. However, we reject the noble Lord's proposals, above all, because we believe them to be unnecessary.
A power to proscribe organisations has been on the statute book in its present form for over 25 years. The Bill adds the important safeguard of the application, refusal, appeal mechanism. Any organisation in Schedule 2 can apply for deproscription at any time and can, under the system in the Bill, ultimately be deproscribed. That in itself is an effective remedy as far as the organisation is concerned.
Of course there are further spin-offs of a proscribed organisations appeal commission (POAC) decision in an organisation's favour. Clauses 7, 8 and 29, together with paragraphs 10, 24 and 40 of Schedule 4, make provision for the consequences of a finding that the Secretary of State's refusal to deproscribe was unlawful. Such a finding means that on the date of that refusal the organisation should not have remained proscribed. It does not say anything about the lawfulness or otherwise of the original proscription of the organisation, or about the standing of the organisation before the refusal to deproscribe. Clause 7 therefore provides only that convictions relating to activity on or after the date of the refusal can be overturned.
But the purpose of Clause 7 is not to signal that if you, as an individual, believe that your organisation should not be proscribed, you may carry on participating in the organisation's activities, in the hope of eventually getting the benefit of Clause 7. On the contrary, if an order proscribing the organisation has been made, the organisation is proscribed. You should dissociate yourself from the organisation, irrespective of the progress of any application or appeal.
For these reasons, we see no need to provide for an appeal against proscription. The system of application, refusal and appeal treats all terrorist organisations the same: those that are already proscribed and any that may be proscribed in future. It is there to give organisations an effective remedy. It is not there to excuse those who choose to break the law.
Perhaps I may turn now to the urgency procedure. I must first emphasise that this procedure is a necessary feature of the regime. Most of the entries which have
176
been added to the list in recent times have been added using it. When a bomb goes off and is claimed by an organisation, an immediate proscription using the urgency procedure order immediately gives the police a valuable tool in pursuing the perpetrators and bringing them to justice. It is also an important way for the Secretary of State to express, in a very tangible way, society's abhorrence for that organisation's methods of pursuing its objectives (although the objectives themselves may be perfectly legitimate, of course).
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested in Committee that the urgency procedure could lead to injustice because it would be possible to proscribe an organisation at five minutes' notice without the knowledge of the members of that organisation. This is a misunderstanding of the position.
As your Lordships know, it is a general legal principle that, although ignorance of the law is not a defence, the law should be available to the citizen. So it would be quite wrong to make an order at 10 a.m. coming into force at 10.5 a.m. The right thing to do would be to provide for the order to come into force the next day. This will give time for the Government to publicise the proscription (which after all, is part of the reason for having the power) and to allow people to dissociate themselves from the organisation or to cease to participate in its activities.
This has been the procedure in the past and I can assure your Lordships that this Government will continue to follow this approach in future. There is no question of using the power to "round up" people on the basis that they did not know that the organisation was proscribed. To return to a suggestion that was made in Committee, I do not therefore see any need to add the word "knowingly" to the membership offence.
Subsection (5A) in Amendment No. 10 proposes that convictions should be annulled if an organisation is proscribed by the urgency procedure but Parliament withholds its consent—a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in Committee. We have considered this matter carefully and we do not agree that such provision should be made.
Once the Secretary of State has proscribed an organisation, membership of the organisation, fundraising for the organisation, and so on become criminal offences. Whatever happens when Parliament debates the order, for those 40 days that is the law, and we expect people to obey it. Every individual has choices to make. In the circumstances we are discussing, a member of the organisation has to decide whether to break the law or observe it. We do not think that it is too much to expect of an individual that he observe the law during those 40 parliamentary sitting days.
It is true that if the organisation is removed from Schedule 2 by virtue of Clause 123(5)(b), a convicted person will not get the benefit of Clause 7. So a person cannot go on participating in the organisation's activities in the hope of appealing successfully and ultimately getting the benefit of Clause 7. But it is right that this should be the case.

177
When the urgency procedure is used, it is right that Parliament should have the option of withholding its consent so that the order falls. From the point of view of the organisation that must be an acceptable outcome.
But Parliament can and must be able to withhold its consent for any number of reasons. It follows that a failure of Parliament to endorse a proscription order is not the equivalent of a POAC ruling in the organisation's favour. In particular, it does not necessarily mean that at any time the organisation should not have been proscribed. From the point of view of the individual convicted of a proscription offence, therefore, the analogy with the POAC process breaks down.
In the POAC scenario there is a finding that the refusal to deproscribe was flawed. In the urgency scenario there is no comparable finding. In both cases we consider that the individual has chosen to break the law, but we recognise that where POAC has made a favourable determination, convictions should not necessarily stand.
It has been suggested that this power could be abused. It is a very heavy power. We have acknowledged this repeatedly and we make no apology for it. But for the reasons I have given, we believe that the urgency procedure, in the form proposed in the Bill, is necessary. We believe that the safeguards we have provided are correct and sufficient; and so, through the Bill, we are asking Parliament to trust the Secretary of State with this powerful tool in the fight against terrorism.
The Bill before your Lordships this afternoon is an important Bill and proscription is an important power. The amendments which have been tabled have probed the workings of this power in detail, and have caused us to think long and hard about whether we have the detail right. The Government believe that the drafting of these powers and procedures is right. I apologise for the length of my reply but the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, are important. In the light of the explanations I have given, I sincerely hope that those noble Lords who have tabled amendments will agree to withdraw them.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I found the noble and learned Lord's reply extremely depressing and unsatisfactory. I do not think that any of his arguments supported the position which he has taken. First, he said that the fact at present that you have to apply for a deproscription order means that the Secretary of State may change his mind, decide to make a deproscription order, and that that makes the procedure cheaper and simpler. Where an appeal is allowed, if the Secretary of State comes to the conclusion that he ought not to have made the order in the first place—perhaps as a result of new evidence which is shown to him—it is perfectly possible for him
178
to indicate that he would not oppose the appeal. If he does so, any additional costs of the appeal would be absolutely minimal. Therefore, I do not see that there is any substance in saying that this procedure is cheaper.
Secondly, it is said that the appeal against a proscription order would not be appropriate because it would create two parallel systems and a multiplication of complexities. This is simply not true. The legislative complexity will be minimal, as seen from the fact that the amendments which I have drafted, and which I believe would be adequate for the purpose, take up no more than a few lines of text. So far as procedure is concerned, there is no reason why any different procedure should be followed before the POAC in the case of an appeal against the original proscription order from the procedure which would be followed in the case of an appeal against a refusal to deproscribe.
Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord said that it was appropriate for all organisations to be treated in the same way. That, again, seems to me to be a wholly irrelevant issue. The fact is that we have a number of organisations which have been proscribed, which could have appealed against a refusal to deproscribe, and have not done so. It seems to me that that is no argument whatsoever for depriving any future organisations which may be proscribed of the right to appeal against a proscription order.
Finally, and particularly, the noble and learned Lord said that this amendment was not necessary because the right to apply for deproscription was a sufficient remedy.
First, there is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lester in regard to the Human Rights Act. That Act is not yet in force but will no doubt come into operation before this Bill becomes law.
There is also the question that proscription orders are now likely to be made against organisations whose main focus of activities is overseas. Those activities perhaps will be less familiar to the authorities in this country than the activities of those organisations which take part in terrorism in Northern Ireland, and therefore a more extensive look at the evidence may well be extremely important.
It seems to me there is a real difference of substance between a "change of spots" case and a case where an organisation should never have been proscribed in the first place. The present procedure will require an organisation, by applying for a deproscription order, in effect to admit that it was a terrorist organisation in order to be released from proscription.
I am very tempted to seek to divide the House on this important issue. The Government have been wholly unable to produce any convincing arguments to support the refusal of an appeal, with all that that means in terms of natural justice. However, this is something which can and probably will be dealt with under the Human Rights Act—if a case arises. I am

179
therefore prepared to leave the Government to face the consequences of the Human Rights Act. With great reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Clause 12 [Support]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, within this group, if government Amendment No. 12 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 13 owing to pre-emption.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 9, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage we objected to paragraph (c) of Clause 12(2) and paragraph (b) of subsection (3). Of these the more important of the two was subsection (3)(b), which provided that a person committed an offence if he addressed a meeting and knew that the meeting was,
"to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation".
That would have made it an offence for a person to address such a meeting, even if his or her reason for addressing the meeting was to express their fundamental opposition to the activities of the proscribed organisation. For that reason I welcome, without reservation, government Amendment No. 12, which removes subsection (3)(b) and renders unnecessary my Amendment No. 13.
However, that still leaves subsection (2)(c), and we have some concerns about that. I have no objection to providing that it is an offence for a person to arrange a meeting to support a proscribed organisation or to further the activities of a proscribed organisation. However, the question of making it illegal to arrange a meeting which is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation is something which one needs to look at very carefully.
In subsection (4) a "meeting" is defined as,
"a meeting of three or more persons, whether or not the public are admitted".
So potentially one is not looking at a public meeting but simply a meeting of a group which has been called for a specific purpose and for some discussion.
But what would happen if, let us say, an organisation in this country were to arrange a meeting here between the Tamil Tigers organisation—assuming that it had been proscribed—and the Government of Sri Lanka, with a view to trying to settle the violence, the civil war effectively, in Sri Lanka? It would be most inappropriate if the arrangement of any such meeting were to be treated as a criminal offence. The Government may wish to say that a round-table conference of this kind does not involve anyone addressing a meeting—that it is a matter of discussion—but I have difficulty seeing that as a certain defence to a prosecution under the subsection.
It seems to me that Clause 12(2)(c) is still potentially objectionable because it covers meetings arranged for wholly praiseworthy purposes. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I support government Amendment No. 12 for the reasons already given. It is somewhat better drafted than the Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 13, and no more needs to be said about that.
I also strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in regard to Amendment No. 11. It is funny to think that if this Bill had been enacted in its present form 30 years ago, the long arm of the law might have descended on the shoulders of certain Cabinet Ministers—both Labour and Conservative—during all their cosy, secret chats with the Provisional IRA in Downing Street and elsewhere.
On a more general point, is it not a good thing that terrorists, or apologists for terrorism, should be encouraged to try and justify themselves in front of a sceptical or hostile audience? If the audience in question were not sceptical or hostile but supportive and enthusiastic, then the organisers of the meeting would be caught by subsection (2)(a) and, in certain circumstances, by subsection (2)(b) as well. So there is no danger on that score.
For that reason, and the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I hope that the House will support the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the amendment stands in my name as well as that of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. I simply add two points.
The marginal note to Clause 12 is "Support". The whole thrust of these offences—which are punishable on conviction on indictment by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years—is that in some way they are to do with supporting terrorism. We welcome what has been said and the fact that the Government have decided to delete Clause 12(3)(b)— no doubt because they appreciate, on consideration, that someone may be guilty of an offence under that provision without in any way supporting the aims of the proscribed organisation—but exactly the same applies to Clause 12(2)(c). In arranging, managing or assisting in arranging or managing a small meeting, the fact that one knows it is,
"to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation",
does not automatically mean that one has any support at all for the aims of that organisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, indicated, one might be utterly opposed to everything that organisation stands for. Therefore, surely logic and principle suggest that symmetry and consistency should be demonstrated in the Government's approach. Given the decision to delete Clause 12(3)(b), one must ask what on earth is the reason for keeping in place Clause 12(3)(c).
Finally—I promise that I shall not repeat this too often—it seems to me that Clause 12(2)(c), as applied, could create serious difficulties under the Human

181
Rights Act as regards convention rights governing speech and association. I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Desai: My Lords, in the debate on Second Reading I expressed my worries about certain aspects of the Bill. I have many academic colleagues who study terrorism as a subject. Much of the knowledge we have acquired about Hezbollah, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers or any other such group is the result of study undertaken by academics, who also make it their business either to meet with representatives of those organisations or, sometimes, to invite them to present a seminar at a university. I can easily imagine my colleagues in the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics arranging such events.
First, it would be very wrong to assume that my colleagues, by inviting such people to address seminars at the LSE, are in some way sympathising with or supporting the activities of a terrorist organisation. Secondly, unless we allow academics to continue with their work on these rather obscure topics, the Government themselves will have access to far less information about the extent of terrorism. Their own information-gathering systems are insufficient for the task.
A great many academics pursue these topics out of a desire for academic knowledge. It is important that such activities, based on a sincere desire to further knowledge and understanding, should not be stopped. I should not wish to see my colleagues go to gaol.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it is not only academics who might fall foul of the provisions of the Bill. Members of your Lordships' House or those of another place might be similarly affected if they undertook meetings for the same purposes.
When considering certain organisations which function only overseas, it must be remembered that those governments themselves engage in dialogue. For example, officials at the Foreign Office held a meeting to discuss Plan Colombia, a £1,600 million dollar programme being launched by the United States in an effort to assist the Colombian Government in combating terrorism and the trafficking of narcotics. One element of that effort is the need to deal with the FARC. That is an armed organisation which opposes the government and controls a large section of Colombian territory. Noble Lords may have seen the details of this in the review section of yesterday's Guardian. A two-page article reported on the so-called Farclandia which is controlled by these terrorists—for that is what they are according to the definition in the Bill. However, they are terrorists with whom the Colombian Government must deal. Over the past few years, President Pastrana has been trying hard to agree a formula of some kind whereby those terrorists can be drawn back into the political process.
Would it not be nonsensical, therefore, to declare that interested parties in this country would be unable to engage in such a process? According to the
182
provisions of the Bill, it would be impossible to invite representatives of the FARC to come here and hold talks with a gathering of MPs or noble Lords to investigate how that peace process might operate and whether the United Kingdom would be able to play a part in it.
The subsection which my noble friend seeks to delete will inhibit the United Kingdom from playing any role in the solution of crises and internal armed conflicts in many other parts of the world.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I have been unable to take part in the proceedings on the Bill until now because of my committee work and because I have had to be out of the country.
I should like to express my welcome for government Amendment No. 12, as well as to support Amendment No. 11. In today's world, it is of key importance that we address the challenges of modern conflict resolution. Conflict resolution is all about talking, all about discussion and all about persuasion. Quite clearly, if we do not permit meetings to be held which may be set up in an effort to persuade those allied closely to proscribed organisations away from them, then we shall be heading up the wrong track, leading to even longer conflicts than is presently the case.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was the first to acknowledge that the Government have moved in this area. However, we cannot move quite as far as the noble Lord would like to take us. Having said that, we are of course impressed by the arguments that have been put from all sides of the House.
Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 13, which the noble Lord has intimated that he will not later move because he has accepted government Amendment No. 12. Both amendments seek to remove the offence of addressing a meeting which a person knows is to be addressed by,
"a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation".
We believe that this offence would help to deprive terrorist organisations of the oxygen of publicity, but we also recognise the concerns that have been raised both in this House and in another place, as well as elsewhere. We take those concerns seriously and have decided, after careful thought, to remove the offence from the Bill.
As regards the proposal contained in Amendment No. 11 tabled by the noble Lord, we do not see such a strong case—I am choosing my words carefully—for removing Clause 12(2)(b). We are of the view that the offence of arranging or managing a meeting, knowing that it is to be addressed by a person who belongs to or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation, is qualitatively different from the offence of "addressing" which we have now decided to drop.
The activity of "addressing" a meeting raises issues of freedom of speech in a rather more direct way than that of "arranging" a meeting. At the same time,

183
"arranging" or "managing" requires a positive intention to help the speaker from the proscribed organisation in a way that "addressing" perhaps may not.
That would be the case even if the meeting is to be held predominantly for another purpose altogether. Even if it was known that a member of a proscribed organisation intended to speak on a subject unconnected with the organisation itself, we think that there is a possibility that such a meeting could be hijacked by the member of the proscribed organisation.
I hardly need to remind noble Lords that the point of proscription is to deprive terrorist organisations of any spurious legitimacy which they may claim. We believe that such organisations should not be given a platform. For that reason, people should not arrange or manage a meeting for them to address. We think that the offence should remain in place.
However, we have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out by way of his example. It is a difficult issue and the Government acknowledge that. We would say that Crown immunity would of course apply and that, perhaps more significantly in this field—it arises elsewhere in the Bill—consent must be given for a prosecution before such a prosecution can be put in train. That decision would lie either with the Director of Public Prosecutions or, as we shall debate later, with the Attorney-General. That is something of a safeguard in response to the example referred to by the noble Lord.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, that point was made by the Home Secretary in another place. He recognised the threat to free speech posed by this provision, but stated that the safeguard lay in the discretion to be given to the prosecuting authorities, who would exercise that discretion sensibly. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Since we are not dealing here with the oxygen of publicity in the sense of a public meeting, but rather a much smaller form of meeting, surely we run the danger of introducing a feeling of great uncertainty if it were simply left to a future discretionary decision on a very serious criminal offence?
Would it not be more sensible to achieve legal certainty and proportionality now by deleting this provision, thus ensuring that freedom of speech could not be chilled in a way that would clearly breach Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights? We cannot leave this to prosecutorial discretion because of that chilling effect. Can the Minister take that into account and think again on the matter?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord that the oxygen of publicity—the phrase that is used so often—can apply as much to a small private meeting which "gets out", as it were, into the public world as to an orthodox public meeting.
However, we concede that there is a problem here. We do not want to go as far as saying that to call a public meeting and invite a member of a proscribed
184
organisation should be lawful, but we should like to consider between now and Third Reading whether there is a way round the dilemma which has been set for us by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He talked about, for example, a meeting organised perhaps by HMG here between a terrorist group and a national government of another country, with the sole purpose of trying to bring them together. I think that was the example he gave. I hope he will understand that I cannot promise anything, but we should like to consider the point he has made.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, has it occurred to the noble Lord the Minister, as it did to me, that perhaps noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches should have proposed an amendment which is rather different from the one they have moved, which would delete the words,
"a meeting of three or more persons"
and insert "public meeting", or some phrase to that effect. That seemed to be what lay behind much or their concern.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, could I ask the Minister to explain why we have no prohibition or talking to the press? Years ago we had such a prohibition on the IRA or other terrorists talking to the press. That was a public platform, and really in the case of this amendment it is very much less of a public platform than appearing on television. Therefore I would still like to see this amendment accepted, whereby such people should be allowed to talk to controlled audiences in the right circumstances.
Lord Bach: My Lords, obviously, anything that the noble Viscount says on these matters is taken very seriously by the Government, but I have to say that what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has suggested as a possible amendment is again something we should like to look at and see whether it could satisfy all parties here, together with the legitimate question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I hope that in the meantime he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am of course grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has said about the possible reconsideration of Clause 12(2)(c). We take the view that it is acceptable to come back with a more limited amendment. It could be argued that simply removing Clause 12(2)(c) would be too broad. Our intention will be that, to be on the safe side, we ourselves will draft a rather narrower amendment and bring it back for consideration on Third Reading, in case the Government think better of bringing back an amendment of their own. Taking that into account, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 7, line 13, leave out from ("activities") to end of line 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Disclosure of information: duty]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 9. line 12. at end insert ("other than journalism").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple and brief amendment but it raises a very important issue. Clauses 15 to 18 create a number of offences. Basically, those offences are concerned with fund-raising and money laundering for terrorist purposes. Clause 19 requires that anyone who suspects someone else of committing an offence under Clauses 15 to 18 should report their suspicions to the police if those suspicions are based on information which has come to them in the course of a trade, profession, business or employment. Failure to report those suspicions to the police is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to five years.
It is obvious that this clause is mainly directed to financial businesses or professions, such as banks and accountants, which are likely to be able to see from the audit of their books or accounts that money has been coming in in circumstances which make it likely that it is for terrorist purposes, or else the money is being laundered. We have no objection to the clause in so far as it affects banks, accountants and so on but, as drafted, this clause extends to journalists as well, and we very strongly object to that. That objection, I believe, is shared very widely by the media. Certainly I have received letters from the Society of Editors and a joint letter on behalf of the BBC, ITN, ITV and Channel 4, objecting to the restrictions on journalism.
I believe there are two reasons why extending Clause 19 to journalism is wrong. First, it inhibits freedom of speech or, as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights put it,
"the right to seek and impart information".
The importance of journalism is indeed specifically recognised in the Human Rights Act.
Secondly, we believe that the extension of Clause 19 to journalism will be counterproductive. Investigative journalism can be useful. Press investigation into terrorist fund-raising can be helpful to the Government, but plainly it will be inhibited by this clause. What will happen if the clause is enacted as it stands? No journalists will be prepared to investigate terrorist fund-raising on the basis that they will have to tell the police how they got their story, who it came from and what was said by whom about whom. Journalists may either refuse to pass that information on to the police and risk prosecution under Clause 19 or, more likely perhaps, they will refuse to investigate and report on terrorist fund-raising. Either way, the police will get no useful information.
It is true that Clause 19 allows a "reasonable excuse" defence but the history of decisions in the courts of this country show that protection of sources is not likely to be regarded as a reasonable excuse. I also recognise that Clause 19 is based upon a section of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which does not exclude journalists. However, we are now replacing that Act with permanent legislation and that gives us a chance to think again. There is no presumption that Clause 19 should be identical with a previous section of an Act.
I believe that the application of Clause 19 to journalists inhibits freedom of speech. I believe that the application of this clause to journalists will confer no benefit on the police or on the Government. They will get no information which they would not otherwise have received. I believe that the application of Clause 19 to journalists does not advance the main purpose of the clause, which is directed to obtaining financial information from banks, accountants and other similar businesses and professions. It is not necessary for the protection of a democratic society. I believe that there is an overwhelming case for excluding journalists from the operation of Clause 19. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may add a couple of words in support. This is, as my noble friend has said, an extremely important matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, may remember that during the passage of the Human Rights Bill the press made an enormous fuss about the potential threat, as they saw it, in the Human Rights Bill to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and his colleagues very wisely decided collectively on including a media clause in the Human Rights Act that would give enhanced protection to freedom of speech.
At one stage in my career I acted in a case which challenged the broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein, where we had the conflicting interests of national security on the one hand and freedom of speech on the other. The Law Lords were unable to give direct effect to the free speech guarantee in Article 10 of the convention because it had not been incorporated into our domestic law.
The Government have now incorporated the convention directly into our law and, to quote my old colonel when I was in the Army, I would bet the Bank of England against a blood orange that if there were a challenge in an actual case by journalists under this clause the court would have to re-read this provision compatibly with Article 10 of the convention in the particular case. Again, it means more money for my profession, and it is quite pointless. An exception of this kind achieves legal certainty, proportionality and the freedom of the press without causing any serious harm to any facet of the public interest. Therefore, we very much hope that the Government will accept this modest but crucial amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is extremely important. As I have often said, I have colleagues who do similar things for the sake of knowledge. That knowledge is useful for society, and even for preventing terrorism. But if, in the course of acquiring it, journalists are to be prosecuted, that will be a great blow.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as was explained in Committee, we do not support a specific

187
exemption for journalists from the reporting requirement in Clause 19. The clause replicates an existing provision which in effect makes it an offence not to give information about, for example, fundraising for proscribed organisations.
As was said in Committee, we fully accept the integrity and professionalism of the journalistic profession as a whole and of individual journalists. But with that integrity and professionalism must also go a degree of responsibility to society. It is a matter, as ever, of striking the right balance.
We believe it is important to retain the old Section 18A of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and this is the provision now replicated in Clause 19 of the Bill. We regard this as an essential provision of permanent counter-terrorist legislation.
Of course, the Government recognise that the journalistic profession takes its responsibilities extremely seriously. But your Lordships will understand, I am sure, that to provide a specific exemption for journalists would leave a potential loophole in this essential provision. It would also carry a risk of making it easier to launder terrorist finance through press and media companies, a result which I am sure noble Lords would not intend.
I do not accept the accusation made in Committee that our approach shows that we do not understand how journalism works. This is not about how journalism works. It is about how terrorism works.
As has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, there is the "reasonable excuse" defence in Clause 19(3). That is an important safeguard in relation to this provision. How it will work in relation to journalism is a matter to be decided in each individual case.
Perhaps I may go further in offering reassurances to the journalistic profession as to our intention in the Bill as a whole. We have had various representations from various parts of the media expressing concern that a number of provisions in the Bill will inhibit the legitimate reporting of the media on matters to do with terrorism. These concerns have been expressed not only in the area of reporting requirements, which we have just discussed, but also in relation to the "collection of information" offence in Clause 58 and to the investigatory powers in Schedule 5.
We have been asked on a number of occasions whether anything in the present wording of the Bill is intended to alter the balance between, on the one hand, the vital responsibility of a government to protect their citizens from terrorism and, on the other, the freedom of expression of the media in the reporting on, and scrutiny of, these groups.
The answer is that all the provisions in the Bill which are of particular concern to journalists are directly modelled on provisions in existing legislation. Indeed, Section 18 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is also of concern, is repealed by the Bill. The provisions which are replicated by the Bill will need to be read with the new definition of terrorism in Clause 1, which, unlike that in the existing legislation, extends to all forms of terrorism.
188
However, I should like to emphasise that, other than ensuring that an equivalent provision is in place to deal with all forms of terrorism, it is certainly not the intention of the Government that anything in this Bill should change the current balance between the freedom of expression that the British media enjoy and the responsibility to assist in combating terrorism. With those assurances, I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him two questions. Am I right in recollecting that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, specifically recommended in his report against retaining this offence in relation to journalism? I do not have the report in front of me but that is my recollection.
Secondly, the Minister referred to the defence of "reasonable excuse". How does that fit with Article 10 of the European human rights convention as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in the Goodwin case where the court emphasised that the confidentiality of sources of journalists was fundamental to the freedom of the press? Is it the Government's view that the effect of Clause 19(3) is intended to be that, where the press has confidential sources, that confidence must be upheld and respected by the courts and therefore must constitute a reasonable excuse. If that is not the position, how are we complying with the Goodwin judgment in framing an offence of this character which puts the burden of proof not upon the state but upon the newspaper to prove a reasonable excuse?
This matter is of vital importance to the press because of the chilling effect that it will otherwise have on freedom of speech. It will certainly very much affect my view to know the answers to these questions: first in relation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and secondly, what brief the Minister has in relation to compatibility with the convention rights, especially in regard to the Goodwin case and confidentiality of sources. I am deliberately speaking slowly so that these points may be fully considered.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the point relating to the report of the inquiry into legislation against terrorism chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I do not think that I am in a position to agree with the noble Lord that he did recommend an exception in relation to journalists. I am told that his recommendation was in relation to Section 18 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We are not dealing with that section; as I understand it, it has been repealed. So I do not think the position is as the noble Lord recalls it. Perhaps may write to him on this point.
So far as concerns "reasonable excuse" and its relationship to the Goodwin case, we believe that Clause 19 does not offend against the convention. "Reasonable excuse" is plainly one part of that. It will be one part of the way in which the section operates. I do not know what was the significance of "betting a

189
blood orange", but it seems to us that, looked at overall, including the "reasonable excuse" defence, the clause complies with the convention.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am still in the dark. The offence is committed if the newspaper does not disclose to the police certain information which has come to the attention of the newspaper in the course of following its profession of journalism. The provision therefore imposes a severe criminal penalty on freedom of expression and in a way that would require the disclosure of confidential information unless there were "reasonable excuse" for not doing so. Respectfully, therefore, I repeat the question. Is it the Government's intention that the confidentiality of sources will be overridden? If so, how does that comply with the Goodwin case?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one must look at the whole of Clause 19, including subsection (3). The noble Lord selects the beginning of the clause but does not look at it as a whole or its background.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I regret that I have not been persuaded by the response of the noble and learned Lord. He was unable to point to any real reason why the Government or police should obtain a benefit from including journalists within Clause 19. The idea that a loophole will be created by excluding journalists is wholly fanciful. Journalism does not involve itself in money-laundering. Therefore, if nominally a journalist organisation goes in for money-laundering that is not an activity that it undertakes in the course of the trade, profession or business of journalism. That means that it will not be caught anyway under Clause 19 unless a particular organisation can be regarded as carrying on some other business.
Be that as it may, we on these Benches regard Clause 19, in so far as it applies to journalists, as a serious infringement of freedom of speech and the press. That being so, we believe that it is appropriate to seek the opinion of the House.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Avebury, L. [Teller]

Desai, L.

Barker, B.

Dundee, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Ezra, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Geddes, L.

Cox, B.

Geraint, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Goodhart, L.[Teller]

190

Gray of Contin, L.

Northover, B.

Greaves, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Hamwee, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Razzall, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Rennard, L.

Hooson, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hylton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Roper, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Russell, E.

Lucas, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Lyell, L.

Sandwich, E.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

McConnell, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

McNally, L.

Taverne, L.

Marlesford, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Methuen, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Monson, L.

Tope, L.

Montrose, D.

Tordoff, L.

Moynihan, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Newby, L.

Walmsley, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gavron, L.

Ahmed, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Alli, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Amos, B.

Goudie, B.

Andrews, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Greengross, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Grenfell, L.

Bach, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Barnett, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Harrison, L.

Billingham, B.

Haskel, L.

Blackstone, B.

Haskins, L.

Blease, L.

Hayman, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blood, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Borrie, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bragg, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Brennan, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brett, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Burlison, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Carter, L.[Teller]

Chandos, V.

Islwyn, L.

Christopher, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jeger, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Judd, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Crawley, B.

Layard, L.

David, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lipsey, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dixon, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Longford, E.

Dubs, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Elder, L.

McCarthy, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Evans of Watford, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Filkin, L.

Marsh, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gale, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

191

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Shepherd, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Mitchell, L.

Simon, V.

Molloy, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stewartby, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Palmer, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Tenby, V.

Paul, L.

Thornton, B.

Peston, L

Tomlinson, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Turnberg, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Warner, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Puttnam, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Whitaker, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Wilkins, B.

Rea, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Richard, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Winston, L.

Sewel, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.21 p.m.
Clause 35 [Duration]:
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Terrorist: interpretation]:
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 64, insert the following new clause—
("Inferences and forfeiture orders

Terrorism Bill

  INFERENCES: OFFENCES UNDER THIS PART
  (" .—(1) This section applies where a person is charged with an offence under this Part.
  (2) Subsection (4) applies where evidence is given that—

  (a) at any time before being charged with the offence the accused, on being questioned under caution by a constable, failed to mention a fact which is material to the offence and which he could reasonably be expected to mention, and

  (b) before being questioned the accused was permitted to consult a solicitor.

  (3) Subsection (4) also applies where evidence is given that—

  (a) on being charged with the offence or informed by a constable that he might be prosecuted for it the accused failed to mention a fact which is material to the offence and which he could reasonably be expected to mention, and

  (b) before being charged or informed the accused was permitted to consult a solicitor.

  (4) Where this subsection applies—

  (a) the court, in considering any question whether the accused is guilty of an offence under this Part, may draw from the failure inferences relating to that question, but

  (b) the accused shall not be committed for trial, be found to have a case to answer or be convicted solely on the basis of the inferences.

  (5) Subject to any directions by the court, evidence tending to establish the failure may be given before or after evidence tending to establish the fact which the accused is alleged to have failed to mention.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, with the leave of the House I speak also to Amendment No. 21. The amendment is based on Clauses 108 to 111 which form part of Part VII, relating to Northern Ireland. I propose that the redrafted Clauses 109 and 1l1 should be inserted after Clause 64.
  As drafted at present, Clauses 108 to 111 apply,
  "where a person is charged with an offence under section 11".
  Clause 11 states:
  "A person commits an offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation".
  In the light of that the individual is considered to be a serious terrorist and comes within the provisions of Clauses 108 to 1ll. For the purposes of the amendment, I speak only to Clauses 109 and 111. Clauses 108 to 111 refer to proscribed organisations and persons belonging to them.
  However, terrorism is more than proscribed organisations or organisations which might be proscribed. There may well be individuals who are per se terrorists. They do not necessarily have allegiances or alliances, other than perhaps the odd financial contract, to any of the world's terrorist organisations. Those individuals could be specialists in a specific field. They could specialise in doing extraordinary things on the cybernet. They could be specialists in communication activities of a sophisticated nature. They could be specialist murderers. In arty sense of the word, they are terrorists.
  I inquired in the Public Bill Office as to how an individual terrorist as opposed to a terrorist organisation could come within the scope of the Bill. It did not appear that he did. Therefore we propose this amendment which inserts the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List —I shall not read it; noble Lords have had the amendment for a day or two——after Clause 64, at the end of Part VI. Part VI relates to terrorist offences committed, presumably, by individuals. Clause 54 states:
  "A person commits an offence if he provides instruction or training in the making or use of"—
  and there follows a list. Part VI lays down how an individual commits a terrorist offence under the Bill. That is good.
  One of the issues about which I feel strongly is that we should not be talking about two or three different classes of terrorists. Part VII is an anomaly: it refers only to Northern Ireland or Irish terrorism. The Bill protects this nation against international terrorism from wherever it may come until such time as your Lordships and another place amend it or pass another Bill. I am anxious that because of inhibitions with regard to human rights, and so on, the Bill will not be strong enough; that we shall leave loopholes and will not make the best use of our experiences in particular in Northern Ireland, spilling over into this country, in legislating against terrorism.
  Clauses 109 and 111—they are rewritten in the amendment—are extremely useful and valuable in the fight against terrorism; otherwise they would not have been in the Bill in the first place. I can see no reason why Clauses 109 and 111 should apply to proscribed organisations and those within them but that another law should apply to those outwith currently proscribed organisations. That is mainly why I move the amendment.
  When fighting terrorism, the terrorist knows no bounds. There is no Geneva Convention. Virtually no rules are accepted. We need to ensure that the security forces—they may be the police or specialist forces—have all the weaponry at their disposal that we can give them.
  I can see occasions on which these provisions could be most useful. One of the most difficult things to do to a skilled terrorist, a specialist of the type at which the provisions might be aimed, is to arrest him. Unless one can operate within a Bill such as this, one must have evidence, a reason, for the arrest. I believe that if the amendment is agreed, your Lordships will have improved the Bill and increased the protection that it is able to give to the people of this nation against terrorism. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we hope that the Government will not be in favour of the amendments. One of the changes that the Government have made to the Bill, which we welcome, relates to Clause 118. They have placed the legal burden of proof on the prosecution; it must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In doing so, they have made it clear that the Bill will fully comply with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the presumption of innocence and the privilege against self incrimination, commonly referred to as the right of silence.
  The effect of the amendments is to permit the drawing of inferences in relation to offences in Part VI as a result of a failure to mention material facts during questioning. If the amendments were accepted, apart from the complex burdens they would place upon judges and juries in attempting to give effect to them, they would create serious inroads into the right to a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence and the privilege against self incrimination.
  Of course we all want to use effective means to combat terrorism, but one means that none of us wants to see introduced is a means that results in unfair trials, the miscarriage of justice and the kind of disrepute into which the criminal justice system would no doubt be brought if there were miscarriages of justice. For those reasons, we hope that the Government will not be in favour of the amendments because in our view they would be incompatible with the Convention rights under Article 6.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I want to make one brief point. I agree with the noble Lord,
  194
  Lord Glentoran, that, given the numerical increase in the number of terrorist groupings and then the further splintering of those organisations, we need to consider his amendment. I fear that we are about to enter a phase in which terrorists will be operating on a do-it-yourself, solo basis motivated by a grudge not against political parties, nations or governments but against someone of their own religious view. I have known of such cases and I am concerned about the numbers multiplying.
  It is not even a case of being able to say, "Where two or three are gathered together", as is said in the Prayer Book. There does not need to be two or three; just someone with a burning desire to get at someone else. Whether there is one solo person or whether there are two or three people, we can be assured that they will be accorded a suitable title—the title which they claim themselves—whether Continuity or Real IRA.
  However, I am afraid that the number of such organisations will multiply because there is money to be made. We have seen it happen in drug dealing and so forth and there are rich pickings for people who have the means—one or two guns—and the expertise which they obtained when serving in the larger organisations. They can pose a very real threat to society and to government. We need to project our thinking forward and to take the necessary measures. I can think of no better vehicle than this Bill which the Government have brought forward.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendment would bring two of the "post-Omagh" provisions into Part VI of the Bill. The provisions referred to as "post-Omagh" were introduced in the special Sitting in the summer of 1998 in the wake of the Omagh atrocity in August that year. My noble and learned friend the Attorney-General described the post-Omagh provisions as pushing the law to its limits. We believe that we were justified in pushing the law to its limits and that we are justified in continuing to do so in order to deal with those people who still oppose the peace process.
  However, we believe that those provisions remain necessary in response to that particular threat. As your Lordships are aware, they have been placed in Part VII of the Bill. That means that they extend only to Northern Ireland and that they are time-limited to five years, during which time they must be annually renewed by Parliament. We believe that that is the right balance.
  We do not therefore support the inclusion of these provisions in the permanent UK-wide part of the Bill. They are a carefully targeted response to the particular problem of organisations opposed to the peace process in Northern Ireland. We see no basis on which they should be applied to other offences in the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may respond on behalf of the Opposition. The noble and learned Lord quoted his noble and learned friend as saying that these provisions push the law to its limits.

  195
  However, he correctly stated that the Government are prepared to do so only as regards Northern Ireland, implying that Northern Ireland terrorism is worse than and different from other forms of terrorism in other parts of the world. But a large part of the point of the Bill is to extend the Northern Ireland laws against terrorism to the whole of the UK. It is to take the legal lessons that we have learnt in fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland and to apply them to the undoubted growth of terrorism in the rest of the world in respect of other causes.
  We all know of the difficulty of obtaining convictions in Northern Ireland. There are two reasons for that. The first is the intimidation of jurors and witnesses which led to the Diplock courts. The second is the ability of trained terrorists to resist the legal process; to resist the police in their interrogations and to use every part of the law in favour of their case. Those are the lessons that we have learnt in fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland. It therefore seems to us right that. Amendment No. 20, which is based on Clause 109, should extend to the other serious offences in Part VI.
  Amendment No. 21 is based on Clause 111 and deals with the forfeiture of money and property as discussed on previous occasions. Again, in relation to the very serious offences dealt with in Part VI, we believe that the provisions should apply to all kinds of terrorist and not only to those in Northern Ireland. If we are to learn the lessons of Northern Ireland in dealing with all types of terrorism in the world, then those provisions form part of the lessons. I believe that the House should support my noble friend Lord Glentoran in Amendment No. 20.
  5.40 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 163.

  Division No.3

  CONTENTS

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Lucas, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Luke, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Lyell, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Montrose, D.

  Byford, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Moynihan, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Newton of Braintree, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Crathorne, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Deedes, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Reay, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Renton, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Rogan, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Hanham, B.

  Sharples, B.

  Hanningfield, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Henley, L.[Teller]

  Stewartby, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Swinfen, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Addington, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Alli, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Amos, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  David, B.

  Avebury, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Bach, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Barker, B.

  Desai, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Elder, L.

  Blease, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L

  Bragg, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Brett, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Gale, B.

  199

  Gavron, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Newby, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Goudie, B.

  Northover, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Paul, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Peston, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Haskins, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Razzall, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Rea, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Hoyle, I.

  Sawyer, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Simon, V.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Jeger, B

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Judd, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Layard, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Lockwood, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Tope, L.

  Longford, E.

  Tordoff, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Walmsley, B.

  Warner, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  McNally, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Winston, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  On Question, amendments agreed to.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 21.
  After Clause 64, insert the following new clause—
  FORFEITURE ORDERS: OFFENCES UNDER THIS PART
  (" —(1) This section applies if a person is charged with an offence under this Part.
  (2) The court by or before which the person is convicted may order the forfeiture of any money or other property if—

  (a) he had it in his possession or under his control at the time of the offence, and

  (b) it has been used in connection with the alleged offence under this Part or the court believes that it may be used in that connection unless it is forfeited.

  (3) Before making an order under this section the court must give an opportunity to be heard to any person, other than the convicted person, who claims to be the owner of or otherwise interested in anything which can be forfeited under this section.
  (4) A question arising as to whether subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) is satisfied shall be determined on the balance of probabilities.
  (5) Schedule 4 shall apply (with the necessary modifications) in relation to orders under this section as it applies in relation to orders made under section 23.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  5.50 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not- Contents, 156.
  6 p.m.
  Clause 107 [Specified organisations: interpretation]:
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 51, line 5, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 is part of the legislation on specified organisations within Part VII. Again, it seems to me that Clause 107(a) and (b) sets up three classes of terrorist. One is either a terrorist under Section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 or a terrorist proscribed for the purposes of this Act in Schedule 2 or a terrorist who comes under both those provisions because Clause 107 states that an organisation is a terrorist organisation if,
  200
  "it is specified under section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, and (b) it is, or forms part of, an organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of this Act".
  I can see absolutely no logic in that wording. As I have said several times today, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist; a terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation. All are a severe threat to this kingdom and the people within it and all should be treated equally severely. We should legislate to give the authorities the necessary powers to protect us.
  In my opinion, Clause 107 would be much more sensible, reasonable and logical if it read that,
  "it is specified under section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, or … it is, or forms part of, an organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of this Act".
  That means that the organisation is either specified or proscribed but either way it is a terrorist organisation and should be treated as such. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is to seek to apply the post-Omagh provisions to all terrorist organisations proscribed in Schedule 2.
  As I made clear in relation to the previous amendment, the Government's view in 1998 was that the post-Omagh provisions pushed the law to its limits but that it was appropriate to do so because of the consequences of not having such provisions in relation to those persons who still attacked the peace process.
  We remain of that view. We believe that the effect of the post-Omagh provisions is that they must be targeted appropriately, and they are at the moment. We do not believe that it would be a positive step at this stage to seek to bring within their scope those organisations which are maintaining the ceasefire. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation which, he rightly says, he gave earlier.
  I have much sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in relation to complex burdens on courts, the risk of unfair trials and miscarriages of justice, I have no sympathy whatever—and I do not think they deserve our sympathy—with terrorists or would-be terrorists. It is wrong to set up two classes of terrorism. I believe that the Government are making a serious mistake in treating the Omagh legislation as something very special which took place after an extremely emotional event.
  We are looking to the future which we can see. I hate to say that it is possible that there could be worse atrocities. There could be knowledge pending such an atrocity when we should like to use the post-Omagh legislative powers.
  I believe that this Bill would be a better Bill had Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 been accepted and had the scope of this clause been widened. However, it has been made quite clear today that that is not the will of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

  201
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 108 [Evidence]:
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 23:
  Leave out Clause 108.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to be fairly brief because this amendment was debated at some length in Committee. However, it is an amendment of some importance.
  This is another of the post-Omagh provisions. It is a provision which has pushed the law not only up to the limits but, in this case, beyond them.
  In speaking to the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that he had no sympathy for terrorists. That is a statement with which we—indeed, I believe I speak for all noble Lords on these Benches—would absolutely concur. We have no sympathy for terrorists.
  At the same time we recognise that in defeating terrorism we do not and should not allow ourselves access to the weapons of the terrorists themselves. In the fight against terrorism, it is absolutely essential to observe the rule of law.
  We are concerned that Clause 108 does not observe the rule of law. The problem is that it treats the opinion of a police officer as evidence. The opinion of a police officer is not and cannot be evidence. He can give evidence as to the grounds on which he holds that opinion but the opinion as to whether the accused is or is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged—in this case, membership of a terrorist organisation—is a matter which is for the court to decide and not for the policeman.
  Evidence of opinion is permissible in our courts only in the case of expert witnesses. The police officer is not an expert. This clause was introduced in the immediate aftermath of Omagh. It was a clause which did not receive the attention that it deserved. It was considered in surroundings of high emotion and at short notice when legislation was rushed through your Lordships' House in a couple of days.
  The only justification for this clause is that it is necessary in order to bring the law of the United Kingdom, as in force in Northern Ireland, into line with the law in the Republic of Ireland where a legal provision of this kind has been in force for some years. Indeed, as I understand it, some convictions have been obtained under it.
  We do not think that that is sufficient reason for departing from the longstanding traditions of British justice, which say that the decision on an issue of this kind is for the jury alone, or in the case of a Diplock court in Northern Ireland, for the judge alone. Furthermore, we believe that not only is this clause contrary to the principles and traditions of British justice, let alone the rules of the European Convention; it is also unlikely ever to have effect.
  I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is unable to be here today. He spoke very effectively on this subject, both at Second
  202
  Reading and in Committee. Perhaps I may refer to something he said. His knowledge of the judiciary in Northern Ireland is far greater than mine. He said:
  "No judge in Northern Ireland—I am lucky enough to know most, if not all, of them—would take account of the opinion of a police officer, however senior, as to whether an accused was a member of a specified organisation unless he could back up that opinion with some evidence. Without evidence it is mere opinion and mere opinion is worthless in a court of law except when it is given on expert grounds".—[Official Report. 6/6/00; col. 1080.]
  The view of the noble and learned Lord was that this clause would be wholly ineffective because no court would convict on the basis of the evidence of a police officer. I recognise that the clause provides that there can be no conviction solely on the basis of that evidence. However, it is clear that, if the other evidence is insufficient on its own to convict, no court would convict by adding the opinion of the police officer to that evidence.
  The evidence on which the police officer bases his opinion is, no doubt, evidence which is admissible in the case. However, what will happen, unquestionably, is that the first question to be asked of the police officer by counsel for the accused is, "What is the evidence upon which your opinion is based?" The police officer may possibly say what that evidence is, in which case the question will be asked, "Why are not the witnesses brought who could give that evidence?"
  What is much more likely is that for reasons of preserving the anonymity of informers or otherwise for the protection of security, the police officer will say, "I am not prepared to state the evidence on which my opinion is based". In that case it seems to me to be inevitable that the court will say, "We are not prepared to place any weight on this evidence". In those circumstances it seems to me that this clause is both wrong in principle and unlikely ever to produce the kind of results that the Government intended when the clause was introduced. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I had thought that I might leave it to the Government to defend the inclusion of this clause in their Bill, which I presume they will do in a moment. However, I should like to respond to one or two of the points made by the noble Lord in moving the amendment.
  The noble Lord rightly said that this provision has been in force in the Republic of Ireland for some time and has led to some convictions. I understand that that is the case. I sometimes find it difficult to explain to the Republic why in Northern Ireland, in some respects, including this, we have weaker laws against terrorism than they do. In one sense we have the same problem; we are dealing with the same terrorists. But obviously it is a greater problem because the terrorists are much more active in Northern Ireland than in the Republic.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also stated that the decision should be one for the court, with which I agree, and would remain one for the court. However, the nub of the reason for my intervention is that the noble Lord said that a policeman is not an expert. I realise that he was speaking as a lawyer and expressing a technical view of who is an expert in a court and may

  203
  give an opinion. It is my view that in Northern Ireland the police are the real experts on terrorism and on who are the terrorists. This applies only to Northern Ireland. It is the police who have been so severely threatened for such a long time. It is they who have studied the terrorists most carefully.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for giving way. Perhaps he would accept that this was not so much my view as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Perhaps he would also accept that the police are, in a sense, experts on terrorism in Northern Ireland. However, they are not experts in the legal sense. They are not experts on the subject of whether Mr X or Ms Y is or is not personally a terrorist. That is not an expert question in terms of the law.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am not an expert in the law. I accept the expertise of the noble Lord and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, as regards the legal position. However, I still believe that the police, particularly in Northern Ireland, are the ones who know the terrorists best, in every sense of the word, and in the deepest sense. They have every reason, both professional and personal, to do so. I believe that without other evidence—this cannot be done on a policeman's word alone—a court would sometimes find it valuable to have a senior policeman, a superintendent, as is laid down, express what seems to me to be, even if not in the legal sense, an expert opinion on the matter. I therefore support the clause.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may explain briefly some additional reasons for supporting the amendment. I hope that in his reply the noble and learned Lord will be able to explain why the Government consider Clause 108, read with Clause 109, because they are inter-related, to be compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I say that because the Government committed themselves, when asked, to provide their reasons for considering a provision to be compatible.
  The Government will know that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission gave a full briefing on this matter and expressed particular concern about Clause 108. The commission pointed out that Clause 108 permits a court to admit police opinion evidence, that is, hearsay evidence, into evidence in criminal proceedings, although recognising that a defendant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of that evidence.
  The commission also pointed out that Clause 109 further permits a court to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's failure during questioning to,
  "mention a fact which is material to the offence and which he could reasonably be expected to mention".
  Again, a defendant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of such evidence. However, the commission pointed out that it appears that a defendant may be
  204
  convicted using a combination of evidence admitted under Clauses 108 and 109. That seems to be the position.
  The existing equivalent power comes in Section 30A of the Emergency Powers Act, which to date does not seem to have been relied on according to the commission in Northern Ireland. The commission understands that the police in Northern Ireland are reluctant to use that section in court.
  The relevant provision of the European convention is Article 6(3):
  "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has … the right … to examine or have examined witnesses against him'".
  In its briefing the commission points to a well-known line of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in cases like Engel, Kostovski, Doorson and Van Mechelen, which essentially say that convictions should not be based solely or decisively on hearsay evidence. The safeguard in the Bill is that they should not be based "solely" on that evidence.
  The commission points out that it holds the same view as that held by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in the debate to which my noble friend Lord Goodhart referred on the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill 1998; that is, that a violation of Article 6 is likely to occur when a conviction is based not solely on police opinion evidence but decisively under Clause 108, or a combination of police opinion evidence and adverse influences under Clauses 108 and 109.
  If the Minister has not seen the brief from the Northern Ireland Commission of Human Rights, and had those points drawn to his attention, I understand that he may wish to deal with this matter by way of letter or at Third Reading. But if he is ready to explain his answers to those points I shall be grateful. Otherwise, this may be another example where we are legislating in a way that will have to be put right afterwards in litigation, if ever the point arises.
  As my noble friend Lord Goodhart said, it seems unlikely that Clause 108 will ever be able to be applied in practice. It will therefore be a provision written in water as regards the law. And although we may draw great satisfaction from such legislation, if that is the true position and it will not be enforced in practice by the courts, the House is entitled to know that.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in his attempt to establish that senior police officers are experts, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, demolished his own case. One of his arguments was that they were experts because they had been on the receiving end of terrorism for so long. I hope that does not misconstrue what he said.
  The last thing one wants in an expert is someone who is emotionally or personally involved. The reason one wants an expert in a court of law is that he is someone who will put forward the facts and the arguments as they exist without personal bias. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, shot himself in the foot, if I may say so, and I support the amendment as it stands.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, it would be difficult to find anybody in Northern Ireland who was not emotionally

  205
  involved in the tragic events at Omagh. That had a traumatic effect on everybody. I doubt it is possible to find any member of the RUC, professional and disciplined as they are, who was not involved in that event because it had such a cataclysmic impact on the whole community.
  Having said that, we are all aware that there are many terrorists in Northern Ireland who are known to the RUC—or in southern Ireland known to the Garda—who are never brought to justice because there is insufficient evidence to convict them. In some instances they may not be guilty of the offence which the police believe they perpetrated. But I am fairly confident that in many instances both the Garda and the RUC know who the guilty people are and do not have the evidence to bring them before the court. With the exception of one person who was charged, to date none of the perpetrators of the Omagh atrocity has been charged, and yet there is reason to believe that many of them are known to the Garda and the RUC. Again, there is no evidence.
  I say that simply as an introductory comment to this debate on Clause 108, given that I was involved as a Minister with the original Bill when it was brought before this House, along with my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. When we are dealing with difficult matters and pushing democracy as far as it is safe so to do, the question is whether the response is proportionate to the evil we are trying to tackle. Although for many offences I would not want a Clause 108, in the case of terrorism as extreme as Omagh the response contained in that clause is proportionate to the evil done to society in Northern Ireland, given the safeguard.
  The noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Goodhart, referred to the safeguard, but I feel that subsection (3)(b) is significant. It says,
  "the accused shall not be committed for trial, be found to have a case to answer or be convicted solely on the basis of the statement".
  I have more faith in the discernment and objectivity of the judiciary in Northern Ireland than suggested by the speeches we have heard this evening.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he realise that we were not in any way disparaging the judiciary in Northern Ireland? On the contrary; we were attempting to explain that, such is the commitment of the Northern Ireland judiciary to the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, it is highly improbable that Clause 108 as it stands will ever be able to be invoked. That is why I described it as a provision written in water and therefore one which ought not to be made part of our law.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I appreciate that comment. In that case we are both agreed as to the high standards of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. I suggest that is an additional safeguard for those who have doubts about Clause 108.
  206
  I repeat, of course we are not overenthusiastic about having to have such a clause on the statute book. But it is proportionate to the evil with which we are dealing and that is a justification for including it in the Bill.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, took us back to the events of 1998 and the Bill which was introduced when he was still a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. I remember the speed with which that legislation was rushed through your Lordships' House and I warned at the time how dangerous it was to enact far-reaching legislation of this kind in response to an event, however terrible, which caused tremendous concern among the public. But that was the wrong way in which to enact legislation.
  The fact that we are adopting provisions contained in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act is not a convincing argument to those of us who objected to the process in the first place. Not only is my noble friend's example of the advice given to us by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission relevant in considering this matter, but so also is the similar briefing we received from Amnesty International, which I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, must have seen.
  I suspect that the noble and learned Lord will not need to make use of my noble friend's suggestion that he may wish to defer a definitive answer to these points until he has had an opportunity of writing. The department must have apprised him not only of what Professor Brice Dickson said but also of the opinions of Amnesty International; that is, that conviction could be obtained on the basis of the opinion of a police officer supported by inferences drawn from a failure to disclose material information under the provisions of Clause 109. They say that this is not only a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention, as my noble friend pointed out, but that it breaches Articles 14(2) and 14(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that in the circumstances we faced in Northern Ireland following the Omagh atrocity, we pushed democracy as far as it was safe to do so. That was a very telling and revealing phrase. In my opinion, we should always have a safety margin in defending democracy. Just as in designing a building so that it exceeds any load that might conceivably be placed on it by a factor of several orders of magnitude, so, in defending democracy, we must have a sufficient margin between the legislation that we enact and the limits to which democracy is fully tested—
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I was making a reply to that point—"as far as it was safe to do so". That is exactly the point that I was making.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Avebury: With respect, the legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, piloted through the House in the Summer Recess of 1998 did not give us that safety margin. As I pointed out at the time, it is the only time

  207
  in the history of Parliament that criminal law has been enacted in the middle of the Summer Recess. It has never happened before. Yet your Lordships rushed that provision through the House, and we are now enacting it in permanent law.
  We should think not once but several times before we insert this provision into a Bill which is going to stand the test of time, but which may test not only the ability of the courts in Northern Ireland but democracy itself. It has never been used, as the Human Rights Commission of Northern Ireland has pointed out, and the police in Northern Ireland must have good reasons for not using it in that context. If it is going to lie on the statue book as a dead letter, we are making the mistake, which Parliament should never do, of putting measures on to the statue book as a gesture when we know that they are never going to be used by the courts.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in relation to any offence, however heinous, wherever committed, it is surely axiomatic that conviction must depend upon evidence. I recognise that in the special circumstances of terrorism generally, and terrorism in Northern Ireland in particular, it may perhaps be necessary to change the rules relating to the obtaining of evidence and how it is obtained, and to change the procedures by which the sources of evidence are protected. I recognise that. What I cannot find myself persuaded to accept is that there should be a different level of quality of evidence.
  I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The essence of his point is that we are seeking to write into legislation something which proscribes a different quality of evidence which would or might lead to conviction.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I intervene very briefly, not to contradict or differ from what the noble Lord has just said, but for the benefit of those of your Lordships who have a fixation about the reliability of RUC officers. The suggestion is that, because they have been murdered in their hundreds, they might have a built-in resistance or enmity towards certain types of criminal.
  I realise that the noble and learned Lord has enough on his plate at present, but perhaps he can give some thought in the future to whether it would be more acceptable if the powers that be invited the Deputy Director of MI6 to give the evidence rather than an RUC officer? It would possibly be even more detailed than anything that an RUC officer might produce. To those who may say that MI6 is not supposed to operate within the United Kingdom, I say that anyone who believes that will believe anything.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Marlesford.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I very strongly support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I recognise the difficulties. However, it
  208
  seems to me that the people of Omagh—and by extension the people of Northern Ireland—need to have justice done and to see it done. We know that at present the RUC has decided that, were it to proceed as the Act of 1998 allows, it would indeed be taken to the Court of Human Rights and overruled.
  Nevertheless, given the provision in this draft legislation, I cannot understand why it is improper because it would not be only on the basis of the evidence of an officer. I cannot understand why the existence of evidence that someone is a terrorist, who was in a place at the right time, should not be brought to court. It just may give courage to witnesses to come forward. They have not come forward, but they have not been given an opportunity to do so. In my opinion, it would be wrong to leave any stone unturned which would enable those people to be brought to justice. Given the provision of the safeguards in the legislation, I cannot see how that could be regarded as improper. It is more likely to secure justice than doing nothing at all.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, 1 find myself in a dilemma. I have heard what has been said by my noble friend Lord Dubs, for which I have a lot of sympathy. I have also heard what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said. It may be that a very stringent law was necessary to catch the killers of Omagh. Nobody has yet been caught. That may be because sufficient evidence has not been obtained, for which we shall have to wait patiently, or because the police have decided that this particular piece of legislation which was passed in 1998 is not of much help either way, and therefore they have not invoked the provisions of this particular clause. I should like to know which of the two is the real explanation.
  If it is an ineffective but stringent piece of legislation which pushes democracy beyond the limits that we would like to set, we should not have it. If it is both ineffective and creates a serious violation of human rights, there is greater reason for not having it. It would therefore be very helpful to know whether this will be an effective weapon in the hands of the authorities and whether there is any evidence for this.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dubs described the effect of the atrocity at Omagh. It is right that the Government should respond to that atrocity in a way that is proportionate and appropriate. We believed at the time that this response was proportionate and appropriate, and we continue to believe that that is the position. Indeed we believe that it would be wrong to change the provisions now.
  In the course of this short debate, these provisions have received considerable support from all sides of the House. As I understand it, the argument for saying that they should be withdrawn is threefold. First, it is said that the provisions go too far. They go, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, put it, "beyond the limits of the law". Secondly, they infringe the Human Rights Convention and/or the Civil and Political Declaration by the UN, referred to in the Amnesty International

  209
  Report. Thirdly—and perhaps contradictory to the first two points—they will in any event be of no avail at any stage.
  With regard to the first point that it goes too far, I should point out that the effect of the provision contained in Clause 108 is that an officer above the rank of superintendent can give evidence of someone's membership of a proscribed organisation. That officer can be cross-examined on the evidence that he gives. The effect of the clause is only to make the evidence admissible; it is entirely for the judge to determine what weight to attach to that evidence. The weight that he attaches to it will, presumably, depend upon such answers as the officer gives in the course of cross-examination. Like everyone in this House, I am second to none in my admiration for the Northern Irish judiciary. I am quite sure that they would be as good as any judiciary in the world in ensuring that the provision is properly applied.
  Secondly, that evidence alone cannot be the basis of a commitment for trial or a conviction: it must be supported by other evidence. Thirdly, in relation to the combination of silence, on the one hand, and the evidence on the other, this could, on the face of it, provide a conviction. However, before any adverse inference in relation to silence can be drawn, the defendant must have had the opportunity to take the advice of a solicitor. Again, the evidence of the officer and the evidence of silence do not compel a conviction. It is entirely a matter for the court to determine what the right conclusion is in relation to such cases. I do not think that the provision goes too far. I believe that there are appropriate safeguards in place. If one looks at the matter from a standing start, as it were, it seems to be an entirely appropriate response.
  Does it infringe the convention or the declaration? Those two arguments have been advanced in relation to why it infringes the convention or the declaration. First, it is hearsay and, therefore, there must be a proper opportunity to test the evidence. That opportunity is there from the legal system that permits appropriate, proper and testing cross-examination of the evidence. Secondly, it has been said—
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Surely the police officer concerned cannot be compelled, for security reasons, to answer questions in cross-examination that might disclose the sources of his opinion. Will that not make cross-examination an ineffective defence? Alternatively, is it the intention that the police officer should be compelled to disclose the source of his information?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords. I should imagine that the usual rules in relation to public interest immunity would not apply in that respect. However, that does not affect my basic point. The case must be made out. If the case is not made out as a result of a refusal to answer questions on perfectly legitimate grounds, no doubt the court will so find. But, in each case, it will depend on whether or not the evidence is sufficient to found a conviction.
  210
  I return to the position under the convention and under the declaration. Is it possible to test the evidence? Yes it is, because it is subject to cross-examination under our system, which plainly complies in principle with Article 6. The other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was that a person should not be convicted solely and decisively on hearsay evidence. Safeguards have been built in to the provision in that respect. The legislation specifically says that a person cannot be convicted on that evidence alone. I believe that the position under the convention is dealt with by those points. It is a perfectly robust position for the Government to take.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should point out that there is no difference between the covenant and the convention, so we can forget about the covenant. I shall concentrate on the convention. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the principle of equality of arms means that no witness must have a decisive weight—an unfair advantage—in the course of a criminal trial, or, for that matter, of a civil trial? If we have a position where opinion evidence (which is hearsay) given by a police officer could be tested by cross-examination ineffectually because he cannot be compelled to disclose his sources for security reasons, that would run the risk of rendering the trial one in which there is inequality of arms and, therefore, unfairness. If that is so, does the noble and learned Lord agree that a judge would have no alternative but to find that the prosecution case had not been made out? It means that the extreme nature of the provision could lead to an ineffectual result. Therefore, there is no contradiction in saying that this is extreme and, for that reason, ineffective.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that takes us back to the essential point: it will depend upon what answers the officer gives in cross-examination. This would certainly be a Diplock trial and, therefore, the judge would then have to proceed on the basis of that evidence. He would have to ask himself, "Is there enough here which makes it possible for me to conclude that I should convict the defendant beyond reasonable doubt?". If there is insufficient material available to reach such a conclusion, I have no doubt that the Northern Irish judiciary would reach that conclusion.
  The final point made by the noble Lord was that this provision will be of no avail because it will never be used. It is very difficult for us to put together all the possible circumstances in which a charge might be brought. There may well be cases where this provision, and the one regarding silence, would be of value to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland. If there is a realistic chance that it could be of value to the prosecuting authorities, then, both for the reason of its effectiveness and also for the reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, it should be in the armoury of the criminal justice authorities in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the reasons advanced by noble Lords do not hold water. We believe that the provision should

  211
  stay. In the light of my remarks, I very much hope that the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, again, I obviously regret that the noble and learned Lord has been unable to offer any movement on the part of the Government in the direction required. Before I deal briefly with the Minister's response, I should like to comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I believe that everyone in the House has the highest admiration for the work carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it gives me no pleasure to have to disagree with him on this issue.
  However, there is a problem here and one which was illustrated by the noble Lord's remarks. He talked about the fact that there have been terrorist outrages in Northern Ireland where the police have known who committed them but have not had the evidence that would lead to a conviction. Nothing in this amendment would affect that position as regards conviction for the commission of an outrage, because Clause 108 applies solely to the one offence of membership of a terrorist organisation. More often than by anything else, miscarriages of justice are perhaps caused by the very cases where the police think they know who committed the offence, but where they do not have the evidence to prove it.
  In the general principle, it is plain that there is no case to justify extending the ability of the police to give evidence as to who committed an offence simply as a matter of opinion—or to state something as a matter of their opinion—when that opinion is not based on evidence that will stand up in court. Therefore, I do not think that the argument put forward by the noble Lord could justify the provisions of Clause 108.
  I turn now to the defence of the noble and learned Lord of Clause 108. The reference to PII is really the nub of the matter. In a sense, the purpose of Clause 108 is to get around the problem of public interest immunity indirectly by giving power to bring in evidence through a police officer's opinion which the Government could not bring directly to court because they are not prepared to compromise their sources. I do not think that this is a legitimate way of handling a matter of this kind.
  I am not happy with the continuation of Clause 108 in this Bill. Nevertheless, despite the fact that we have received support from several Members of your Lordships' House who do not sit on our Benches, it is clear that both the Government Front Bench and the Conservative Front Bench would oppose any attempt to remove Clause 108 from the Bill. Any attempt to do so would therefore clearly be heavily defeated. Even so, I would be tempted to press the amendment were it not for the fact that I am convinced that for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, on previous occasions, this is a clause which in practice is most unlikely to be used. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 113 [Transitional provisions]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 54, line 9, at end insert—
  ("( ) Paragraph 18A of Schedule 9 shall have effect only in relation to an offence alleged to have been committed after the coming into force of that Schedule.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  Clause 117 [Consent to prosecution]:
  [Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 27:
  Leave out Clause 117 and insert the following new clause—
  CONSENT TO PROSECUTION
  (".—(1) This section applies to an offence under any provision of this Act other than an offence under—

  (a) section 36,

  (b) section 51,

  (c) paragraph 18 of Schedule 7,

  (d) paragraph 12 of Schedule 12, or

  (e) Schedule 13.

  (2) Proceedings for an offence to which this section applies—

  (a) shall not be instituted in England and Wales without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and

  (b) shall not be instituted in Northern Ireland without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

  (3) Where it appears to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland that an offence to which this section applies is committed for a purpose connected with the affairs of a country other than the United Kingdom—

  (a) subsection (2) shall not apply, and

  (b) proceedings for the offence shall not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General or the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 34. I shall be brief.
  In Committee I said that the Government would bring forward an amendment at Report stage covering similar ground to that in Amendment No. 27 and similar ground to that in the amendments then before the Committee moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, concerning consent to prosecutions in what might be termed "international" cases. This we have done. Our amendments speak for themselves. As far as international cases are concerned, it should be the Attorney General who has to give his consent to a prosecution taking place. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches are most grateful to the Government for taking on board the points we made in Committee. We are happy to support the Government's amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we also made similar remarks earlier in our debates. I support the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 118 [Defences]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 55, line 10, leave out ("sufficient evidence") and insert ("evidence which is sufficient").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28 I wish to speak also to government Amendment No. 29. These are minor and technical amendments to make sure that Clause 118, which was added to the Bill in Committee, works for Scotland. The reason they are needed is that Clause 118 as presently drafted uses the expression "sufficient evidence". I am advised that this expression can have a technical meaning under Scots law and, quite simply, could itself require a shift in the burden of proof to the prosecutor. In the context of Clause 118, noble Lords will appreciate that the confusion which this could cause for Scotland is certainly not what we intended—which was to refer to evidence which is good enough to give rise to issues about the matter before the court.
  Fortunately, by simply turning the words round from "sufficient evidence" to "evidence which is sufficient" we have been able to keep the meaning the same as it is at present for England and Wales and Northern Ireland while at the same time removing the risk of any confusion regarding the application of the clause in Scotland. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 55, line 19, leave out ("sufficient evidence is adduced") and insert ("evidence is adduced which is sufficient").
  Clause 123 [Orders and regulations]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 30:
  Page 58, line 33, leave out ("1(2)(b)") and insert ("2(2)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 36 and 37.
  The substantive amendments in this group are to Schedule 1 to the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that Schedule 1 is a mechanism for keeping alive the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act between Royal Assent and the commencement of Part VII of the Bill next year.
  When the Bill was introduced, we had to bear in mind two possibilities. The first—perhaps a rather optimistic one—was that Royal Assent would be received before 15th June, the second that Royal Assent would be after that date. Schedule 1 was therefore drafted to cover both scenarios.
  Now that Royal Assent will obviously be after 15th June, we consider that these technical provisions are best redrafted so as to proceed on that basis. We hope that in doing so we have made Schedule 1 easier for the reader to follow. I beg to move.
  [Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
  Clause 128 [Commencement]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 59, line 33, leave out ("2(2)") and insert ("2(1)(b) and (2)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  Clause 129 [Transitional provisions]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 60, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) Where—

  (a) a person is detained by virtue of a provision of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (as continued in force by virtue of Schedule 1 to this Act), and

  (b) the provision ceases to have effect,

  he shall be treated as lawfully detained under any corresponding provision of this Act.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 60, line 29, at end insert—
  ("(8) Section (Consent to prosecution) shall apply to the institution of proceedings after commencement of that section whether the offence to which the proceedings relate (which may, by virtue of subsection (4) above, be an offence under a provision repealed by this Act) is alleged to have been committed before or after commencement of that section.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
  [Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
  Schedule 1 [Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
  Page 61, line 5, leave out paragraphs 1 to 3 and insert—
  ("1.—(1) This paragraph applies to any of the following if and in so far as it is in force immediately before the passing of this Act by virtue of an order under section 62(3) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (duration)—

  (a) a provision of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (other than one mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)),

  (b) a provision of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, and

  (c) section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 (forfeiture orders).

  (2) This paragraph does not apply to the following provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996—

  (a) section 26(1)(b) (power of entry on authority of Secretary of State),

  (b) section 35 (wearing of hoods), and

  (c) section 50 (explosives factories).

  2.—(1) A provision to which paragraph I applies shall continue in force for the period of 12 months starting with the day on which this Act is passed.
  (2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for a provision to which paragraph 1 applies to continue in force for the period of 12 months immediately following the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
  3.—(1) The powers under section 62(3)(a) and (c) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 shall continue to he exercisable in relation to a provision to which paragraph 1 applies in respect of any period falling within—

  (a) the period mentioned in paragraph 2(1), or

  (b) a period specified in relation to that provision under paragraph 2(2).

  (2) The power under section 62(3)(b) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 shall continue to be exercisable in relation to a provision to which paragraph 1 applies at any time during—

  (a) the period mentioned in paragraph 2(1), or

  (b) a period specified in relation to that provision under paragraph 2(2).

  3A. The Secretary of State may by order provide for a provision to which paragraph 1 applies—

  (a) to cease to have effect on a specified day;

  (b) to cease to be capable of being the subject of an order under section 62(3) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.

  3B. The continuance in force of a provision by virtue of paragraph 2 is subject to any order made by virtue of paragraph 3 or 3A.
  3C.—(1) A provision of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 to which paragraph 1 does not apply shall continue to have effect for the purposes of, or in so far it relates to, any provision to which that paragraph does apply.
  (2) While Part I of Schedule 1 to that Act (scheduled offences) has effect by virtue of this Schedule, the following shall also have effect—

  (a) Part III of that Schedule (extra-territorial offences), and

  (b) sections 3, 10 and 11 of that Act so far as they relate to offences which are scheduled offences by virtue of that Part.").

  Page 61, line 41, leave out ("paragraph 1(2)") and insert ("this Schedule").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were both spoken to with Amendment No. 30. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 62, line 2, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(5)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 38 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45, 52 and 53. This amendment and the others in this group are minor and technical drafting amendments. They do not change the effect of the Bill in any way. Of course I would be happy to explain each of them further if noble Lords wish. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 62, line 38, leave out from ("may") to ("appeal") in line 39.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 39 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 50 and 51.
  One of the improvements this Bill makes to the EPA is to introduce a right of appeal against a refusal by the Secretary of State to grant a licence to a person wishing to provide private security service in Northern Ireland. A refusal to issue a licence may be based on sensitive
  216
  intelligence—the purpose of the licensing regime is to prevent funds being raised for paramilitary organisations.
  The Bill ensures a right of appeal to the High Court but where there is a need to protect intelligence material the Secretary of State may certify that the refusal to issue the licence was to prevent funds reaching the paramilitaries. When such a certificate is issued, the High Court proceedings stop and the appellant may, if he chooses, appeal to the tribunal established under the 1998 Northern Ireland Act. That tribunal's proceedings are governed by rules made by the Lord Chancellor. Amendments Nos. 40 and 51 provide for those rules to have effect with the changes necessary to reflect the expansion of the tribunal's remit, subject to any later changes to the rules themselves.
  Amendments Nos. 39 and 50 are minor drafting changes to clarify the position that the tribunal rules are indeed the rules which will apply in private security services cases. Without these amendments, we are concerned that the impression might be given that we intend to make separate rules. I trust that these are uncontroversial amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 62, line 42, at end insert—
  ("(8) Rules made under section 91 or 92 of that Act which are in force immediately before the passing of this Act shall have effect in relation to a certificate under sub-paragraph (5)—

  (a) with any necessary modifications, and

  (b) subject to any later rules made by virtue of sub-paragraph (7)(b).").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.
  Schedule 2 [Proscribed Organisations]:
  [Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
  7 p.m.
  Schedule 4 [Forfeiture Orders]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 45:
  Page 75, line 3, leave out ("in any case").
  Page 77, line 21, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
  Page 77, line 37, leave out ("within the meaning of section 14").
  Page 88, line 35, leave out ("Economic Development") and insert ("Enterprise, Trade and Investment").
  Schedule 7 [Port and Border Controls]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 109, line 9, at end insert ("as soon as is reasonably practicable").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 46 responds to a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, during the Committee stage. I agreed to consider this further and report back to the House.
  The Government believe that there are sound reasons for the United Kingdom to carry out checks at ports to prevent and detect terrorists and terrorist activity at our borders. The provision of passenger and crew details is a very important part of that process. But the Government also recognise that requirements on carriers to co-operate have to be reasonable, proportionate and conducted sensitively so as to minimise the impact on the travelling public and business. We also recognise that we need to work closely with carriers and operators at ports to achieve this. A partnership approach is required.
  The amendment provides that owners and agents of ships or aircraft should provide the police with passenger information,
  "as soon as is reasonably practicable".
  It was, of course, never the Government's intention in drafting this provision that carriers would be asked to provide information within unreasonable time scales. We felt that it went without saying that the police would ask for information to be provided within reasonable time frames, bearing in mind the particular circumstances of the case.
  But I recognise that there has been some concern on this point and that an explicit reference to "reasonableness" on the face of the Bill may provide additional comfort. As part of our on-going partnership approach in combating terrorism, I am happy to bring forward this amendment today. I beg to move.
  Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister did not wish to omit my name on purpose, but I moved a similar amendment at an earlier stage. On behalf of the other noble Lords, who were not in their places a moment ago, I thank the Government for taking our point on board and for bringing forward this amendment, which achieves what we were asking.
  Viscount Simon: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 46A, which is grouped with this amendment, like the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, I am grateful for the government statement made in Committee that carriers would not be prosecuted for passing on information that turned out to be false. However, this still leaves the air and sea carriers without the statutory defence accorded to the financial institutions in Schedule 6. I am at a loss to understand why the Government should consider this disparity of treatment acceptable. Transport operators certainly find it exceedingly odd.
  I understand that the board of airline representatives has invited the Home Office officials involved to view its reservation systems in order to ensure a proper understanding of what information is contained about passengers and what is not. Had the carriers been consulted prior to the introduction of the Bill, as the banks were, I suspect that the defence would have been granted to them earlier. Regrettably, consultation did not take place.
  218
  I should make it clear that the carriers seek only to have the defence in cases where they are unable to provide the information because they simply do not have it. It is not a case of being obstructive by withholding information. The banks have been allowed this defence in similar circumstances, and I am simply proposing that the air and sea carriers should be treated equally when the police come to invoke their powers.
  At the beginning of my remarks I praised the Government for their assurances in respect of carriers passing on information which turned out to be bogus. There is no way in which carriers can verify passenger information because passengers are not required to carry passports with them when travelling within the common travel area. Transport operators' experience suggests that celebrities are among the most loyal of customers, even to the extent of appearing several times on the same passenger list.
  The worth of such passenger information must obviously therefore be questioned. I ask my noble friend to consider how information of this kind could be of any help to the police in countering terrorism.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I support the amendment. I apologise for being slightly late; things have moved on rather quickly.
  I thank the Government for introducing Amendment No. 46, which is very helpful from the point of view of the carriers. The words used by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in Committee—which are now recorded in Hansard—are also very helpful to carriers.
  The Minister will of course recognise the wording of Amendment No. 46A in that it is taken precisely from Schedule 6 to the Bill which gives the financial institutions exactly this kind of defence. If it is allowable for the financial institutions, why should it not also be allowable for the carriers? It seems to me that it is the same kind of information, and the noble Viscount has explained the difficulties that the carriers can have in providing it. As we said in Committee, there is absolutely no requirement within the common travel area for any papers to be carried by passengers. It would seem perfectly reasonable to give the carriers exactly the same defence as the financial institutions have in Schedule 6.
  As I understand it—and as the noble Viscount said—the carriers were not consulted during the drafting of the Bill. Had they been so, they would have been able to inform officials from the Home Office exactly how they go about issuing their tickets and run their reservation systems. I understand that that is now happening, but perhaps it is a little late in the day.
  I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the noble Viscount's amendment and to explain why the financial institutions should have this defence and the shipping and airline companies should not.
  Lord Greenway: My Lords, on behalf of the ferry companies, I, too, should like to be associated with the sentiments behind this amendment, having moved a

  219
  similar amendment at Committee stage. I do not think the Government will have changed their minds in the interim, but it would be nice to know that they have thought about it again.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we had some discussion on these general matters in Committee. The case has been made again by my noble friend Lord Brabazon, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I rise to express some sympathy with the points that lie behind Amendment No. 46A and to thank the Government for responding in the way that they have done in bringing forward Amendment No. 46.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken on this issue. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for not having mentioned his name in the context of those who have helped us to come to the view expressed in our amendment as a result of what they said at Committee stage.
  In Committee we discussed the need for a partnership approach between industry, the police and government in combating terrorism, and the important part that the provision of passenger information can play in this. We debated an amendment very much along these lines. Our amendment, to which I have already spoken, which specifies that passenger information should be provided by carriers and owners
  "as soon as is reasonably practicable"
  provides, we believe, a measure of reassurance that we are sensitive to industry concerns on this issue—and noble Lords have been kind enough to agree with that belief.
  However, I am afraid that we do not think that the amendment brought forward by my noble friend Lord Simon, which is supported by other noble Lords, adopts the right approach in seeking to provide, in addition, a statutory defence that the information requested was not in the carrier's possession or that it was not reasonably practicable for the carrier to comply with the requirement.
  A particular concern is that the first leg of the statutory defence—namely, that the information was not in the possession of the carrier—could at least, on a literal reading, allow a carrier to make no attempt at all to collect the requested passenger information. The carrier could then put forward a defence that that information was never in his possession. I am sure that that is not the intention here. An excellent record of co-operation is held between the carriers and the police. But that could he the effect were this amendment to be agreed.
  Moving to the second limb of the proposed statutory defence, the debate on the order under the Bill will provide the opportunity to decide what types of information it will be reasonable to require of carriers. Once Parliament has agreed what types of information should be provided, and given that our amendment stipulates that that information should be
  220
  provided as soon as "reasonably practicable", we do not think that it is either necessary or right in addition to provide a statutory defence in the Bill to the effect that it is not practicable to collect the information.
  The police will ask for this information in the context of on-going counter-terrorist inquiries and investigations. The police will not do this lightly. But when information is requested, information that Parliament has agreed the police may request, and to a reasonable timescale, we think it only reasonable to expect that information to be collected. Surely that reflects exactly what should be the partnership approach in tackling terrorism.
  I hope that I have made it clear that we are committed to making the passenger information provisions work for all concerned: for the industry, for the travelling public and for the police. We all agree that the focus should be on working together to combat terrorism.
  Before I sit down, I have been asked by a number of noble Lords a question about the defence set out in Schedule 6 to the Bill. In Committee a noble Lord suggested that it might have been an oversight on our part not to provide such a statutory defence regarding the non-provision of passenger information, because a similar provision existed under Schedule 6 in relation to the provision of financial information.
  However, no oversight has taken place here. The provisions are different; that is why the related offences are constructed differently. The financial information schedule concerns approaching banks to see whether they hold accounts in certain names. If they do not, clearly they cannot provide the information, which is why that statutory defence is provided. Frankly, it makes less sense in the context of passenger information and could be abused, as I have already pointed out.
  As regards the second proposed statutory defence—namely, that it is not reasonably practicable to comply with the requirement—this is provided for in the context of financial information primarily because the police may approach the banks with requests for them to search back through their records for historic information. Depending on the information systems in place, it simply may not be practicable to check that the information is available or to provide it.
  However, we believe that the situation regarding passenger information is different. The police will be asking for information about passengers who are about to travel or who have just done so. Thus the wherewithal for collecting information will be to hand. Moreover, the police will be requesting that information,
  "as soon as is reasonably practicable".
  In these circumstances we do not think it either necessary or right in addition to provide a defence that it was not reasonably practicable to collect and pass on the information. For those reasons, we cannot accept my noble friend's amendment. I hope that he and those who have spoken in support of the amendment will realise that, through their efforts, they have already achieved a great deal.

  221
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 46A:
  Page 109, line 33, at end insert—
  ("(1A) It is a defence for an owner or agent of a ship or aircraft charged with an offence under paragraph 17(2) to prove either—

  (a) that the specified information requested was not in his possession; or

  (b) that it was not reasonably practicable for him to comply with the request.").

  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his words regarding Amendment No. 46A. I am sure that we shall all study with interest what he has had to say. The chances are that I shall return to this point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 8 [Detention]:
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 47:
  Page 114, line 42, at end insert—
  ("( ) Any part of the consultation heard by the qualified officer shall be treated as subject to legal privilege binding on the qualified officer.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have now reached the final group of amendments. In speaking to Amendment No. 47, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 48. However, since I tabled Amendment No. 48, I have discovered that the expressions "legal privilege" and "legal professional privilege" are not appropriate expressions in the law of Scotland. For that reason, Amendment No. 48 is defective.
  Amendment No. 47 raises an issue on which I hope to receive a reassurance from the Government. The reason why a police officer may be required to listen to what is being said during the course of an interview between someone charged with an offence or who is being held under investigation and his or her solicitor is that there may be cases where, regrettably—although it certainly has happened—the accused might wish to pass on to the solicitor information which would enable evidence to be hidden or other damage to be done to the investigatory process. We accept that that is a legitimate excuse for providing a requirement that the interview should take place within the hearing of a police officer.
  However, a problem arises where what is being overheard may perfectly well be the normal substance of an interview between client and solicitor in which the client gives to his solicitor an account of the facts as he sees them. In that case, if the police officer is not bound by professional privilege, that officer would be entitled to pass on to other members of the police force and ultimately to the prosecution the substance of what he has overheard. That information might in due course be of use to the prosecution in the trial because it would allow the prosecution to say that the accused's
  222
  evidence on a certain point was inconsistent with the original story as told to the accused's solicitor. That seems to us to be improper.
  The legal professional privilege that attaches between a client and a solicitor—which does not of course extend to matters such as requesting assistance in hiding evidence—should also bind the police officer, so that that officer is equally prevented from passing on to the prosecution information about what he has overheard during the course of the consultations between client and solicitor. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that this amendment is not necessary, but, if it is, it seems to me to be a point that should be covered by the legislation. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that there are technical and policy reasons why we cannot accept these amendments. As regards the technical point, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, got there before me in his comment on the expression "legal privilege" in the language used in Scottish legal circles.
  I shall turn directly to the policy issues here. On a substantive level, as we understand it, the concern of the noble Lord is to ensure that nothing passing between a person detained under Schedule 8 to the Bill and his solicitor should be available for use by the prosecution in subsequent criminal proceedings against the detainee.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, that does not quite cover the burden of the amendment. It seeks to ensure that nothing which could be the subject of legal professional privilege as between client and solicitor should be capable of being passed on by the police officer who overhears the consultation. Matters that range outside professional privilege, which would undoubtedly cover an instruction to the solicitor to dispose of evidence, would not be covered by the privilege.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that such a provision is unnecessary. The way the provisions in the Bill are framed, in that they provide that the officer in the interview must be uniformed and a uniformed member of the force, not connected with the detained person's case, indicates that the intention is not to collect information which may be later used in evidence against the detainee. Rather, the purpose is, as detailed in Schedule 8—in paragraph 8 so far as England and Wales and Northern Ireland are concerned and paragraph 17 so far as Scotland is concerned—is to prevent the compromise of terrorist investigation. These paragraphs make it clear that this is the only reason that a police officer may sit in on such an interview. That purpose is reinforced by the fact that such communications between the detainee and his solicitor under common law would be protected by legal privilege or its equivalent in Scotland, confidentiality. Thus we do not believe the amendments to be necessary
  In any event we think they are rather widely drawn. They appear to suggest, although the noble Lord has made it clear that they do not, that anything which is

  223
  discussed between a solicitor and his client should attract legal privilege. That is not so in ordinary cases and we do not think it should be the case in terrorist ones.
  We accept that the prosecution must not be provided with legally privileged material. That does not mean of course that the police are prevented from taking any action in connection with anything overheard in an interview. For instance, if a detainee provides information, to take an extreme example, about an imminent terrorist attack, of course action may be taken to disrupt the bomb.
  As I said in Committee, it is acutely uncomfortable to contemplate circumstances in which such provision may be needed. I emphasise to the House that it is only for the most exceptional cases; but it is important for it to be there. For the reasons that I have explained, we believe that the concerns of the noble Lord about the provisions are unfounded. I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I think that my worries have been disposed of by what he has said, and I am grateful that he has now put that on the record. In the circumstances I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
  Schedule 9 [Scheduled Offences]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 49:
  Page 127, line 37, at end insert—
  ("Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18)
  18A. Offences under the following provisions of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 subject to note 1 below—

  (a) section 1 (unauthorised access to computer material),

  (b) section 2 (unauthorised access with intent to commit further offence), and

  (c) section 3 (unauthorised modification).").

  Schedule 13 [Private Security Services]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
  Page 138, line 45, leave out from ("may") to ("appeal") in line 46.
  Page 139, line 2, at end insert—
  ("(4) Rules made under section 91 or 92 of that Act which are in force immediately before this paragraph comes into force shall have effect in relation to a certificate under this paragraph—

  (a) with any necessary modifications, and

  (b) subject to any later rules made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(b).").

  Schedule 15 [Consequential Amendments]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 52 and 53:
  Page 147, leave out lines 13 to 17.
  Page 148, line 12, at end insert—
  ("Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6)
  .—(1) The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 88(2)(b) (meaning of "remanded in custody") for "section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989" substitute "section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000".
  (3) In section 101(12)(b) (meaning of "remanded in custody") for "section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989" substitute "section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000".").

  Indonesia
  7.23 p.m.
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, since the debate on Indonesia is not now being taken as dinner-break business, the length of speeches for all speakers other than the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Scotland, may be eight minutes rather than four minutes. There is of course no obligation on noble Lords to extend their speeches.
  Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards recent developments in Indonesia.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the current situation in Indonesia in your Lordships' House and I thank all noble Lords who will be participating in the debate.
  The debate is, sadly, timely. Recent developments in Indonesia are cause for great concern. Only yesterday 120 people were killed in the Christian village of Duma in Halmahera in Northern Moluccas. My contribution will focus on the escalation of conflict in the Moluccas, as I and colleagues from Christian Solidarity Worldwide have recently returned from the region. We found devastation and suffering on a scale beyond anything we had expected.
  The Moluccas, also known by their more romantic name of "The Spice Islands", are dramatically beautiful. They used to be a model of religious harmony. But recently sectarian violence has racked the communities, leaving many once beautiful and prosperous towns and villages in ruins, an estimated 3,000 people dead and over 270,000 displaced, many living in conditions of acute deprivation in the jungle.
  The two major religious communities, Muslim and Christian, had co-existed peacefully for centuries. But tensions have been building, erupting in to violence and war for a number of reasons: demographic, economic, political and religious. First, there was Suharto's policy of transmigration in which the delicate demographic balance of approximately 50 per cent Muslim and 50 per cent Christian was upset by a large influx of predominantly Muslim settlers. This upset trading patterns, with Christians experiencing difficulties in selling goods in the markets.
  The new demographic structure led to changes in political representation and to the marginalisation of Christians in local government, the military and the police force. Local conflicts were fuelled by the influx of jihad warriors. Major conflict broke out in the town

  225
  of Ambon in January last year during which about 700 churches were burned together with many mosques. An estimated 2,000 jihad warriors arrived while we were there in April. There have since been reports of the arrival of a further 1,000 members of the Laskar Jihad movement.
  Subsequently, violence has escalated. Time only permits a few examples. On 30th May this year, also in Halmahera, at least 50 Christian villagers were killed and over 100 injured in a carefully co-ordinated land and sea attack believed to have been carried out by jihad warriors, actively supported by the Indonesian armed forces. On 3rd June, in Ambon, the Reverend Ridolf Bernard was killed and three people injured in an attack on a ferry. On 8th June, in nearby Sulawesi, police reinforcements were sent to Poso to quell violence which had already claimed 20 lives. The chief of police expressed concern over reports that a further 1,500 jihad warriers were on their way to the area.
  On 10th June the town of Tubelo in Halmahera was attacked from land and sea. Two hundred were killed and hundreds wounded. The rest of the Christian population fled to the hills and elsewhere in Indonesia. Bodies were mutilated before they were beheaded. The island of Ternate had a large majority of Christians but has now been totally cleared of Christians, with an unknown number killed. All the evidence suggests that jihad warriors are gaining active support from disaffected elements of the Indonesian armed forces and that many of them are being trained by advisers from other militant Islamic countries.
  It is inevitably difficult to obtain accurate information, but local Christians fear biased media coverage in this predominantly Muslim country, which portrays Christians as the aggressors. This perception encourages Muslims from elsewhere to come to the region to carry out a jihad against Christians to protect the Muslims whom they believe are under threat.
  Many believe that the religious conflict is an orchestrated campaign by Suharto's supporters to destabilise the government and regain power. There is also a fear that militant Islamic extremists wish to undermine President Wahid's commitment to religious tolerance. In massive rallies earlier this year, an extremist movement behind the Laskar Jihad started recruiting volunteers to join the jihad against the so-called "Christian separatists" in the Moluccas. The movement claims to have recruited over 10,000 volunteers since January and the 3,000 jihad warriors reportedly converging on the Moluccas had been trained in military-style training camps.
  Local people believe that Islamists in the military and in government are planning to drive out all Christians from the Moluccas, one of the few parts of Indonesia where Christians maintain a significant presence. They also believe that this may be part of a longer-term plan to turn Indonesia into an Islamic state by 2003, and then to establish a more extremist Islamic state, which would have far-reaching implications regionally and globally.
  These fears for the future are cause for serious concern. However, I must highlight the present dire situation in which many thousands of people—both Muslims and Christians—are suffering. We witnessed the widespread destruction of homes, churches and mosques on a massive scale. We visited communities driven into the jungle to try to survive in the most primitive conditions, with no adequate housing, food supplies or healthcare.
  We went by boat to the island of Haruku. People from Ambon were crowding onto the ferries, evacuating their homes, in fear of the threatened jihad. En route to Haruku, we passed close by the village of Tial, which had been attacked in October 1999, when the village and church were destroyed. It had been a place where Muslims and Christians had lived together in peace. When the attack occurred, some Muslims helped the Christians to defend their church; six of them died in the church.
  On the island of Haruku, we found harbour villages devastated. They had been attacked on 23rd January this year by troops from land and sea. The land troops came over the mountains, wearing the characteristic jihad white uniforms and headbands. The troops attacking from the sea reportedly consisted of a mixture of jihad warriors and regular military forces. Neighbours from a nearby village tried to help the local villagers defend their homes and church, but they were overwhelmed. Four were killed in the church, which was destroyed. Only an empty shell remains, with a bombshell serving as a symbolic bell and the mangled remains of the weathercock from the top of the spire suspended from a telephone cable. The population of the village was over 3,600. We visited them, displaced in the jungle. On the way, we met a family carrying a child suffering from malaria. Some medical supplies are still available—but not enough. There is an urgent need for more healthcare.
  The pastor told us, "The attack started at 5 a.m. and continued until noon. Nine people were killed by the military at the football pitch. Many others were injured. Some injured were still alive when the military came with bayonets and stabbed them in the neck. We didn't have time to collect our dead. Those who died were beheaded. We have not been able to find their heads, because the soldiers take them." As we left, the pastor pleaded, "If we don't get any help, we will die."
  We also had meetings with community leaders in Ujung Pandang and in Ambon where we heard many accounts of similar attacks on local communities, both Christian and Muslim. We saw video footage of some of the attacks, and we saw and heard many examples of indescribable atrocities perpetrated by jihad warriors. Some are detailed in our reports. They are too gruesome to recount in this House.
  We also heard and saw evidence of attacks on Muslim communities and the suffering of displaced Muslims. We met local parliamentary representatives, both Muslim and Christian. All stressed the need for reconciliation. However, reconciliation must be based on openness, honesty and acknowledgement of all that has happened. When we tried to ascertain the extent of

  227
  the suffering experienced by the Muslim communities, the Muslim parliamentarian declined to give figures. According to other community leaders, the estimate was, very approximately, that of those suffering from sectarian raids about 75 per cent were Christian and about 25 per cent Muslim.
  I conclude by asking the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will encourage the Indonesian Government to take urgent action to stop the murderous activities of the jihad and allow international monitors to be attached to the armed forces; to allow an international fact-finding mission to undertake an impartial investigation into the conflicts in the Moluccas; to take immediate measures to investigate, identify and prosecute those responsible for these conflicts, which have caused such immense suffering; to act swiftly and impartially to provide humanitarian assistance to all those currently suffering from the conflict and to allow unrestricted access to the region for humanitarian aid agencies. Will Her Majesty's Government do everything possible to increase the provision of humanitarian relief to the region?
  The situation is critical. President Wahid is trying valiantly to help Indonesia to recover from the legacy of Suharto rule, to develop democracy, reduce corruption and maintain religious pluralism. He has many powerful opponents: those who want to bring back previous political leaders, and those who want to move Indonesia forward to a more militant, intolerant Islamic regime. Both factions may be using the present conflict to further their own ends by destabilising the nation and weakening President Wahid's government.
  It must be in the interests of Her Majesty's Government to support President Wahid in his commitment to maintain democracy and religious tolerance in this vast, complex and influential nation. I know that the Government are deeply concerned and I much look forward to the Minister's reply, with the expectation that it will bring to the Government of Indonesia some promise of support, and to the people in Maluccu and North Sulawesi, who are suffering so acutely, the assurance that they are not forgotten and that help will be forthcoming.
  7.34 p.m.
  Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I thank her for initiating this important and timely debate.
  We have heard again today of the latest suffering brought about by the sectarian violence that has engulfed the once happy and peaceful communities in Indonesia. It is right and proper that we should turn our thoughts to the unfortunate people who live their daily lives in fear, brought about by intimidation, cruelty and intolerance. It is also right that we ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards recent developments in Indonesia.
  I am aware that the options open to the Government are rather limited. However, the reconciliation of efforts that have been made and are being made by the
  228
  British Government in the Moluccas are both welcome and necessary. I hope that the joint efforts with the Indonesian authorities in that troubled region can be built upon among the international community at large.
  The need for a proper and in-depth investigation by the Indonesian Government into the causes of the conflict between the Christian and Muslim communities has been well documented in a recent report from the Christian Solidarity Worldwide organisation referred to by the noble Baroness. The investigation should be open and wide-ranging; it should include international representatives. Such an investigation is vitally necessary if the spiral of violence is to be ended.
  It has been estimated that more than 3,000 people have died and some 270,000 people have been displaced in the Moluccas alone. It is difficult for us, in the safety of this society, to comprehend how people live in the constant shadow of conflict and threatened violence. The suffering is all too real, and such has been the case for the past 18 months.
  The reports of jihad warriors arriving in the Molucca Islands led to a Question being tabled for Written Answer in another place on 23rd May. The Government's response at that time confirmed that they had received reports that a number of extremists from outside Maluku had travelled to the province. They were under close scrutiny by the authorities in Maluku. In the same response, the Government said:
  "We have urged the Indonesian Government to ensure that the security forces maintain law and order and the protection of all citizens".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/00: col. 410W.]
  I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister if the Government have received a response from the Indonesian authorities. Further, did the representations to the Indonesian authorities include a request for the expulsion of jihad warriors from the islands?
  The report from Christian Solidarity Worldwide contains details of recent events in a number of places where violence is taking place daily. The time available in this debate does not allow me to quote from the reports of happenings in a number of the islands. It is sufficient to say that the reports contain harrowing and graphic accounts of the killings and maiming of a large number of people.
  In opening the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned Ambon. Perhaps I may quote one small part of the report that records recent violence in Ambon. It states,
  "Echoing words from Dili last September, the people of Ambon cry, 'We need help, when will the world intervene to stop the violence and death in Ambon! Can Australia help? It's our only hope. There is nothing we can do for tonight Ambon is dying'. Please pray for the people of Ambon and especially remember those Christians who are being terrorised through a campaign of violence and intimidation".
  Let us this evening hear and heed the cry of the people of Ambon.
  I applaud the work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide and in particular the outstanding contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.

  229
  All Members of this House are indebted to the noble Baroness and to Christian Solidarity Worldwide for drawing our attention to the situation that sadly prevails in Indonesia.
  It is my hope and prayer that the concern expressed this evening will hasten the time when preservation of life and religious freedom for all of Indonesia's people is fulfilled.
  7.38 p.m.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, it is a privilege for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, and to echo and endorse everything that he has said. It is indicative of the widespread concern that many of the sentiments that the noble Lord has expressed, and before him the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will be echoed on all sides of the House.
  Before turning to the main burden of my remarks, perhaps I may say that we all owe the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, a great debt of gratitude for the characteristic way in which she has seen for herself at first hand and has been able to tell us about the situation in the Moluccas and in Indonesia generally. That is characteristic of the noble Baroness herself and her description this evening of this humanitarian disaster. Devoid of unnecessary hype or emotion, she told us the facts in a straightforward way. I believe that we are now all well aware of the need to take urgent action to try to assist the people in that beleaguered place.
  During May this year a delegation from the Jubilee Campaign, with which I am associated, visited Indonesia. That delegation included Joseph Pitts, a US Congressman, and Mr Mark Siljander, a retired US Congressman. During that visit they met President Abdurrahman Wahid. Even while they debated these issues with him on 28th May in another part of Indonesia, Medan, bombs were placed in a Protestant church building. They exploded during a service and 47 people were injured. It was one of three bombs which had been placed in Medan that weekend. The local governor, Tengku Rizalnurdin, was quoted as saying:
  "This is certainly designed by provocateurs".
  The bombs were the same as those used in attacks carried out in Maluku and Jakarta.
  The Jubilee delegation visited hospitals in Medan 48 hours after the attacks to see some of the victims, many of them young women. The bombs had been placed underneath a gallery in the church where the young women were sitting. Many of those young women remain untreated. One of them had open wounds, and bomb fragments and nails remained embedded in her body. The delegation was told that there were no resources to deal with all of the victims.
  In a letter of today's date, in reply to mine of 11th May, Mr John Battle states that Her Majesty's Government would,
  "not hesitate to engage in frank discussion"
  230
  with the Indonesian Government. I hope that the material which has been assembled by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, to which the noble Baroness alluded, and the Jubilee delegation which visited Indonesia will feature strongly in those discussions.
  The Minister's letter replies to concerns that I voiced to him about the violence in Ambon and the Molucca islands. To date, some 162 churches—60 Catholic and the others Protestant—have been destroyed throughout the Maluku islands. In the whole of North and South Maluku about 400 churches have been destroyed since February 1999.
  Although Jakarta has organised many fact-finding teams to investigate these abuses of human rights, no reports whatsoever of those investigations have been made public. As in East Timor, the situation has been exacerbated by the flow of arms into that troubled part of the world. One non-governmental organisation claims that 700 arms found recently originated in Nigeria. Clearly, the flow of arms, the absence of international monitors, the imposition of jihad, the destruction of churches and the targeting of vulnerable Christians are all the components needed to create an international tragedy that could end in genocide.
  During this brief debate I should like to mention six headlines which perhaps give some idea of what I and others, primarily from the American Congress, who have had the opportunity to see the situation, believe should be done in consequence of all that has been said so far in the debate. I believe that Her Majesty's Government should put pressure on the Indonesian Government during the dialogue to which Mr John Battle refers in his letter: first, to remove more than 2,000 Islamic militants who have infiltrated into the Moluccas province to wage a jihad and to stop further influxes of fighters with the deliberate intention to create the kind of tension that we have seen so far and to disrupt the co-existence that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, rightly reminded us, previously existed.
  Secondly, we must ensure that those Indonesian military units which, instead of acting neutrally, have taken sides in the conflict are removed from that theatre. Thirdly, we must take decisive action to punish those responsible for atrocities. Fourthly, I believe that unilaterally Her Majesty's Government should impose an arms embargo on Indonesia and urge the European Union to do likewise. All aid to Indonesia should be closely linked to the actions of its government to restore peace in the Moluccas. Fifthly, there is an urgent need for international monitors. The Christians in the Moluccas and their church leaders have frequently called for United Nations intervention. Although I note that Mr John Battle says in his letter that the situation is not comparable with that in East Timor because there is no question of disputed sovereignty, which I accept, nevertheless there are many precedents in other parts of the world for the involvement of UN monitors, even though questions of sovereignty are not on the table. Monitors would be free of the allegation of bias which is so often levelled at the Indonesian security forces.

  231
  Church leaders in Indonesia have also urged that neutral third-party human rights investigators, such as UN human rights monitors, be sent to the Moluccas to investigate the causes of the conflict and human rights abuses that have taken place there. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that particular point in her reply.
  I turn finally to the issue of aid. So far about 3,000 Muslims and Christians have died in the conflict, and it is estimated that over 300,000 people have been internally displaced. The British Government and European Union should also do a lot more to get humanitarian assistance to the vast number of internally displaced people and those who suffer as a result of the conflict, such as people in Medan to whom I referred earlier. I hope that when the Minister replies she will outline the nature of the humanitarian aid which is being provided at the present time by Her Majesty's Government and what is being done to ensure that it is distributed equitably between all the groups affected by the crisis. At the weekend I noted that in one of the newspapers President Abdurrahman Wahid was reported as addressing the Christian Conference of Asia and calling for mutual understanding and tolerance. We all hope and pray that that sentiment becomes a reality.
  7.46 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this short debate, which is not only important but particularly timely. Like other noble Lords, my concern is also with these religious clashes. The noble Baroness indicated the social, economic and political background to the clashes. I hope that the House will be assisted if I mention three other factors.
  First, Indonesia is not only the most populous Islamic country in the world but traditionally it has been the most tolerant, incorporating many elements of pre-Islamic culture and creating a society in which other religions are respected.
  Secondly, as a result of the process of modernisation there has been heightened religious consciousness in Indonesia over the past 20 or 30 years so that people have found their identity through the mosque or church. As people move to the big towns and cities, particularly Jakarta, from outlying islands and villages, whereas in the past traditionally their identity and culture lay in their village, now it is to be found round the mosque and church, which heightens the sense of the public importance of religion.
  The third background fact is that over the past 40 years or so there has been a variety of Islamic renewals in Indonesia. We are extremely fortunate in that President Abdurrahman Wahid has been very closely associated with the most helpful form of Islamic renewal in Indonesia which is based upon traditional Islamic schools. He has argued for a renewal of Islamic society through a renewal of culture and has opposed the imposition of an Islamic state. He has been quite
  232
  clear that religion and the multi-cultural and multi-religious state need to be separated. It is extremely fortunate that it is he who is president.
  I have followed these extremely serious clashes, which have continued for a long time, in The Tablet. That excellent publication has better world coverage than any national newspaper. I shall not repeat the details which have been mentioned. I give just one figure. In 1999 at least 2,500 people were killed in the Spice Islands. As other noble Lords have mentioned, there was a recent serious raid—the dawn raid on mainly, although not exclusively, Christian villages in which up to 80 other people were killed. Although we focus mainly on the Spice Islands, there have been bombs in many other places in Indonesia.
  When President Abdurrahman Wahid addressed the Christian Conference of Asia on 3rd June, he rightly called for religious tolerance. He also stressed that these problems must be solved locally. He said:
  "We should thrash out our ideas in talks at the local level. Maybe the central government will send someone to facilitate the meeting, but the community itself should take the initiative".
  But the local communities have already been heavily engaged in achieving religious tolerance. Religious leaders, both Islamic and Christian, have worked very hard locally. More than a local response is needed.
  As other noble Lords have emphasised, the big question is this. What are those 2,000 armed people doing there? How are they allowed to be armed and trained? Why is no one stopping them? Lawlessness is fomenting religious strife for some of the reasons mentioned by the noble Baroness. There was clear evidence in earlier clashes in Indonesia that much of that religious strife was stirred up by government forces. In this case, it is not the government forces but probably supporters of the former president Suharto aligned with other extremist elements.
  How can the Government best use their influence to ensure that President Wahid uses government power and government force to stop this unbridled lawlessness? If it were left to the local people, I do not believe that there would be these clashes. As the noble Baroness emphasised, those people have lived together happily for a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, put forward a series of practical suggestions. I, too, shall listen with great interest to the Minister's response on the influence our Government can bring to bear in order to help President Wahid bring the situation under control.
  7.52 p.m.
  Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, when I was young, I attended Highbury Chapel in Bristol which was built on the site where five Christian martyrs were burnt to death. The plaque commemorating that was in white marble and clearly visible from the house in which I grew up. Fortunately, differences on doctrinal matters are not so drastically dealt with. We have much greater tolerance among our various Christian denominations.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who helps us by initiating these debates, is constantly thanked and praised for her efforts. However, we must not let the

  233
  noble Baroness carry our consciences for us. She has drawn attention not only to the problems in Indonesia but also to those in the Sudan, Burma and other parts of the world where Christians are in very great difficulties. There is a responsibility on everyone who appreciates that situation to move forward and make (what is called in the jargon) a step increase in activity to counter it.
  In the annual report of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the organisation with which the noble Baroness is associated, the chief executive, Mervyn Thomas, states in his introduction:
  "In the last year of a century which saw more Christians persecuted for their faith than all other centuries put together, I believe our achievements were truly remarkable. With more than 250 million Christian believers suffering in one form or another…".
  That gives some idea of the scale of the problem. That is buttressed by a quote which I have mentioned twice previously in this House. It is still absolutely true and correct, and it has to be said time and again until people take note of it. A report commissioned by the United States State Department, published in the spring of 1997, states:
  "Though religious persecution is being experienced by people of different faiths (Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Bahais and others) the overwhelming majority of cases worldwide have to do with Christians. This situation reflects the fact that Christians are today the single most persecuted religious group in the world".
  We all have to concentrate our efforts on what to do about that situation. We hear a great deal about pressure groups. I have talked about them in this House in particular in relation to the able and skilled way in which comparatively small groups have had the constitution of this country changed; and further changes are in prospect. A great deal of success has been achieved by these extremely able people. Having accomplished all this work on constitutional changes in this country, I should now like them to consider organising pressure to help our fellow Christian brothers and sisters abroad. If people decide that they will persecute a Christian community in their country, they should know that there will be such an organised volume of protest that they will face a difficult situation.
  I should like to believe that we can go forward; that that message may be taken up by some of the people to whom I have referred (of whom some may now be at a loose end); and that they will help the work already being undertaken so that we can make a real impact and stretch out the hand of fellowship and relief to our persecuted brothers and sisters abroad.
  7.57 p.m.
  The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, extend my warm thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who has added yet another war-torn country to her travelling list. This time she has chosen a vast state which is experimenting with democracy but where there are inevitably many existing and potential conflicts arising from the collapse of the former dictatorship. There are some reasons for optimism,
  234
  but until the army and Golkar have greater confidence in the administration there will be continuing political and economic uncertainty. I believe that the EU has a vital role in supporting Indonesia in this democratic process.
  I hope that it is in order again to raise the case of Timor because of its importance to Indonesia and the presence of refugees on Indonesian soil. Despite the relief of independence last August the ensuing violence left a new nation in ruins and a trail of hatred in the hearts of many former inhabitants. The refugees include elements of the pro-autonomy militias who caused the violence. It will take a long time for these physical and psychological wounds to heal.
  The names of Aranyaprathet and Goma still haunt the United Nations and aid agencies. The Khmer Rouge in Thailand after Cambodia's year zero, and the Interahamwe and others in Zaire after the horrors of Rwanda, while posing as refugees continued to exercise their brutal control even when humanitarian agencies had jurisdiction. The international community has repeatedly tried, and failed, to be on the side of the angels. The fact is that in a civil war there are villains on both sides and the United Nations is supposed to remain neutral. That did not always happen in Goma and it is not yet happening in West Timor.
  It may be time for this House to debate the role of the United Nations again in order to examine its mandate and see whether it can possibly cope with the scale of peacekeeping operations world-wide. Indonesia is already on the list of countries stretching international humanitarian resources to the limit, with more than 400,000 Moluccans, Acehnese and other internally displaced persons at the end of 1999. But that is not for today.
  On the positive side, we should congratulate the East Timorese on their progress since independence and the High Commissioner for Refugees, among others, for the repatriation of more than half of the 200,000 refugees now returned to East Timor. However, the numbers crossing have diminished and there are still up to 125,000 in the West, most in the Belu regency or around Kupang. Even higher figures come from the Indonesian Government. The United Nations has not yet been able to register all of those refugees, some of whom live in scattered settlements. It estimates that there are 267 individual sites. Many camps are inevitably close to the border and inaccessible to the aid agencies.
  Not only is humanitarian aid denied to many because of access problems, but security threats to refugees and HCR staff have been constant. Convoys have been stoned and police protection is inadequate. There has also been hostility from the local population, especially those who own land where refugees have been temporarily settled.
  Although the situation has improved along the border recently, the militias have maintained a powerful hold even on the organised camps, intimidating refugees and discrediting the HCR staff

  235
  who have tried, for their part, to present a positive image of the return of normality in East Timor to encourage repatriation.
  Last week, the head of the United Nations programme described the situation as "very fragile" and "volatile". The pro-auton leaders still offer their supporters the mirage that the elections can be invalidated and that Indonesian-backed militias can yet re-establish control in Dili. Some hopes have been placed in the possible reconciliation of one military commander, Mr Hermino Costa da Silva, who met Mr Sergio de Mello, the head of UNTAET, last week and appeared to recognise the weight of public opinion in East Timor. The East Timor leader, Mr Xanana Gusmao, also plans to visit the West Timor refugee camps. Those are positive signs.
  Meanwhile, there are serious humanitarian problems in the settlements, with food shortages and health risks which Oxfam says could soon develop into a public health crisis. Flash floods and landslides in May displaced 16,000 people who still suffer from a shortage of proper shelter, water and sanitation.
  For all those reasons, the United Nations and Indonesia's Governor Tallo are seriously considering resettlement over the coming months. This may encourage some refugees who are uncertain about the future to join the repatriation programme. But the longer they wait the more they are likely to be seen as collaborators. Many are former civil servants and East Timor desperately needs their skills to rebuild its administration.
  Finally, can the Minister say what the Government are doing to support humanitarian work in West Timor? I am sorry that I have not given notice of that question. Furthermore, are any United Kingdom non-governmental agencies involved and receiving UK assistance? As the right reverend Prelate said, Indonesia has a tradition of tolerance. My experience of the Pancasila is that that is almost unshakeable. I hope that the noble Baroness's fears of an Islamist state are proved groundless, but she is right to draw attention to the terrible persecutions and tragedies which have occurred.
  8.4 p.m.
  Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and other noble Lords have most effectively covered the situation in Maluku. Therefore, I shall move on to other areas of concern.
  Although the economy of Indonesia has recovered from its lowest ebb in 1998, there are still 36 million unemployed people. Both internal and external investment are at a very low ebb. The Chinese diaspora moved much of their capital out of the country after the anti-Chinese riots of 1998. Can my noble friend say what prospects our Government and the international financial organisations hold out for further economic recovery?
  Suharto fell as a result of the economic crisis of 1997. His much more popular successor, President Wahid, is unlikely to survive if economic progress does not occur. Although the influence of the military at the
  236
  centre of government has been greatly reduced by President Wahid, it is a different matter in the field, where local commanders seem to be able to follow their own agenda with impunity, sometimes through the use of violent local militia, as in East Timor.
  We all know too well that their effect was devastating and many towns and villages remain largely destroyed; perhaps 130,000 enforced refugees still live in concentration camp conditions in West Timor. My informants tell me that the Indonesian security services are intimidating refugees and contributing to the process which is preventing them from returning home.
  It is good that we now have an FCO post in Dili. It would be helpful if my noble friend could briefly describe the activities co-ordinated from this base, both independently and together with the United Nations. The Australians have carried the brunt of the security and relief operation in East Timor to date. Can my noble friend briefly say what financial and other assistance we are providing and what arc our plans for the future in East Timor?
  Finally, I want to say a few words about Irian Jaya, West Papua. That large territory was transferred from Dutch to Indonesian hands in 1962, in the absence of any West Papuan representatives. The 1969 "Act of Free Choice", which legitimised the annexation, is widely held to have been flawed and illegal. Last month, the West Papuan People's Congress, attended by thousands of ordinary West Papuan people, proclaimed their independence. Although the Indonesian Government are firmly opposed to secession, the West Papuans appear to have a good case considering the circumstance of the original annexation 38 years ago.
  I realise that it is not easy for Her Majesty's Government to state a public position on this, but there is no doubt that if not handled skilfully a further violent trouble spot will emerge further to drain Indonesia's resources.
  8.7 p.m.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, it would probably be easier to recite a list of the countries which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has not visited rather than to list those she has visited, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. But once again she has done your Lordships a tremendous service by initiating the debate on the present situation in Indonesia. Her comments on Maluku are of enormous importance as a description of the situation, the number of people killed and the number displaced. She might also have added the number of people thrown out of work, which I gather now exceeds 100,000.
  That is all as a result of the awful clashes which were exacerbated by the influx of the 2,000 Laskar jihad fighters from Java. That was pointed out by the noble Baroness, by the right reverent Prelate and by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead. I understand that they were training quite openly in a camp in West Java. Although the Home Affairs Minister, retired General Surjadi Sudirdja, pleaded with them not to go

  237
  to Ambon, nothing was done physically to prevent them from leaving. I am told that when they arrived in Ambon they were received by the Governor, Saleh Latuconsina, and the military commander, Brigadier General Max Tamaela, who, paradoxically, is a Christian.
  According to one authority, President Wahid ordered a blockade to stop the fighters from landing in Ambon. However, from the end of May onwards the armed forces there kept a very low profile, amounting almost to invisibility. The commander of the jihadists, one Dja'far Umar Thalib, who is said to be an Afghan veteran and is obviously extremely well financed, established a base on Ternate, from which he conducts seaborne raids on the Christian villages, as the noble Baroness described.
  It seems that no attempt has been made to stop those activities by the military. Mr Thalib is reported to move freely between Ternate and the capital in Jakarta. Therefore, I should like to add to the questions put to the Minister by the noble Baroness. What do the Government know about the activities of this particular gentleman, and why are the Indonesian Government not attempting to restrain him, take him into custody and charge him with offences arising from the atrocities which his forces have committed?
  Unfortunately, as we have heard from this debate, Maluku is not the only part of Indonesia where violence and anarchy are being stirred up. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, it will take years, if not decades, to repair the damage which was done by the army-supported militias in East Timor. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out, there are still over 100,000 refugees in West Timor who, we believe, are being prevented from returning by the militias.
  I saw a report by a recent delegation of congressional staffers and human rights workers, including a representative of the London-based human rights organisation, TAPOL, on a visit which they paid to the camps at the beginning of May. They reported evidence of militia control and intimidation and of TNI collusion with the militias. They said that they saw militias controlling the distribution of food to the camps. They saw that the camps are highly militarised, that the UNHCR dares not venture into them without a TNI escort, and they found that there was, as they put it,
  "a serious disconnect between what the civilian government of Indonesia wants and what the military powers prefer".
  That means that no amount of pressure on Jakarta will be effective unless the TNI can be made to agree that it should remove all weapons from the camps, preferably under UN supervision, so that the UNHCR can take control over its administration.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that the military local commanders follow their own agenda. Nowhere is that more true than in Aceh, where the armed forces have waged a systematic campaign of violence against the people for many years. The three-month "humanitarian pause", which came into force on 2nd June, was a breakthrough in the sense that for the
  238
  first time Indonesians accepted the good offices of an international agency in dealing with an internal problem—in this case, an armed opposition. However, it does not appear to have moderated the conflict. Incidentally, perhaps that could be used as a precedent to bring in international agencies to examine some of the other problems that affect many other parts of Indonesia, including Maluku.
  During the humanitarian pause in Aceh, reports were received of attacks on soldiers by the GAM and retaliation by the armed forces against civilians. We and others have been pressing for trials of those who committed the war crimes and crimes against humanity in East Timor. I believe that we should extend that demand so that similar crimes in Aceh, Maluku and other parts of Indonesia can be dealt with in the same way according to law.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the West Papua People's Congress, which, as he said, was attended by some 3,000 delegates from all parts of the territory and declared that the so-called "Act of Free Choice", by which West Papua became part of Indonesia, was null and void. The government took a conciliatory line on that at first, apparently hoping that if the West Papuans were allowed to let off steam in the congress, they could be cajoled into an amicable relationship with the centre. However, when they saw the line being taken by the delegates, they took fright. I understand that they have now begun to pick off the leaders who attended and arrested them. The official line now is that foreigners who attended the conference were provoking agitation. They are referring to the delegates from Papua New Guinea and Australian NGOs, some of whom are sympathetic to the view, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that the UN violated its own rules on self-determination when it handed West Papua over to Jakarta without a referendum.
  I do not believe that the disparate peoples of Indonesia can be ruled without their consent or that, in the long run, the Indonesian military could cope with the enormous task of suppressing independence movements and dealing with communal violence. The best hope of keeping Indonesia together as a state would be to allow territories such as West Papua and Aceh to control their own affairs, except for foreign affairs and defence, with mineral rights shared on a basis to be agreed with locally-elected legislatures. The army's support of the civil power could then be concentrated on preventing conflicts between religious or ethnic groups.
  The development of genuine accountability, which is also essential to a stable Indonesia, would not be achieved on present policies. The draft Bill on human rights courts proposes that the courts would have jurisdiction over gross violations of human rights. However, there are concerns that the definition of those crimes is inconsistent with that adopted by the International Criminal Court and also that some of the offences may not have been crimes under Indonesian law at the time that they were committed.

  239
  As has been said, Britain and the EU have very limited influence over these matters. We have funded initiatives to promote reconciliation in Maluku; we have encouraged the Ministry of Human Rights, which has a mere six employees and has yet to resolve its boundaries with Komnas Ham, the national human rights commission; and the Foreign Secretary says that:
  "We are ready to help in any realistic and sensible way in reducing ethnic tensions and violence".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/00: col. 107W.]
  I believe there is far more that we can do to help Indonesia to come to grips with the underlying causes of violence and human rights violations and to examine all possible solutions.
  8.16 p.m.
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, all the participants in this short debate have expressed their warm appreciation of the role played by my noble friend Lady Cox in bringing to us her first-hand accounts of this appalling tragedy. I strongly endorse everything that has been said about the service that she has performed.
  The odd thing is that before the Asian currency turmoil and the collapse of the Thai baht—although, of course, the East Timor tragedy had been unfolding over the years and there were many problems—the general world view (it may be an ignorant view but it was a world view) of the vast country of Indonesia was that it was extremely prosperous and stable. Indeed, the great gurus of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the other world financial institutions were telling investors around the world that Indonesia was high on the list of desirable places in which to invest. Indeed, the IMF approved of the way in which the country was being run. That says a number of things. I believe that one is that economists are nearly always wrong about other countries; another is that the global financial system can be very indiscriminate and is unable to pick up and sense the different problems and developments in different cultures and different areas of the world.
  What occurred was that East Asia went down as a whole, followed by other countries, including Russia. Again, contrary to the prediction of the economists, East Asia rose again and in most cases has recovered well. Unfortunately, Indonesia, the largest of the nations of East Asia—one of the largest in the world—has recovered more slowly.
  Sometimes I believe that Indonesian citizens must feel that their country has been cursed by an endless series of disasters that have unfolded. There was the financial earthquake. Then they suffered the endless series of hideously bitter religious wars, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred. That was fought with an intensity that seems almost medieval and is very hard for us to grasp. The Molucca problem has worsened, and is getting worse while we have this debate. There were the horrific developments in Aceh, which Mr Lee Kuan Yew told me were being financed by Libyan arms and Iranian money. He saw no end to
  240
  them, although recently a truce has been signed in Geneva that may just hold things. Then there were other areas of disintegration and riots in Ambon and in other parts of the republic. Then there was a real earthquake on top of the financial earthquake, and on top of that were the hideous forest fires. There were many other problems: starving areas, a shortage of food, the vendettas against the Chinese, who had to flee for their lives, mainly to Singapore, and so on. The series of events could not have been more disastrous. One is left asking whether it could have been prevented. Was there a point at which the horrific story of the past two years could have been curbed? I suspect probably not.
  Former President Suharto obviously had to go. He was running a corrupt and rotten regime, but it had a cruel stability. All the hideous developments that we have talked about this evening remained hidden, apart from those in East Timor.
  Could the International Monetary Fund have acted differently? Did it make matters worse? I believe that it probably did make matters a bit worse. A more sensitive and focused understanding from the IMF management of the problems caused by pressing its demands for restructuring and reform too hard might have prevented some of the worst difficulties and ugliest developments.
  I should declare a remote interest, in that I advise a bank that was the retained adviser to the Ministry of Finance in Jakarta. My colleagues found it extraordinarily difficult to get the real problems over to the IMF and to explain that pushing ahead on the economic side and ignoring the political repercussions would make matters much worse.
  Then there is the army, about which noble Lords have spoken. It is playing a sinister role. Some people are looking forward to a coup or a military takeover, possibly with the formation of an Islamic state. The role of the army is ambiguous in Aceh and many other places, as we have heard from first-hand accounts. The desperate need for the civil authority to recapture or recontrol the army is central to Indonesian stability.
  Despite all that gloom, Indonesia remains. Two years ago, people in Singapore were telling me that Indonesia was going to unravel and that it would be one of the great modern states that would disappear, broken up into a hideous series of provincial warring tribes. That has not happened. That is not saying much, because a lot of things have happened, but the Indonesian state remains intact—just. A lot of credit must go to the deceptively mild Abdurrahman Wahid, the new President, who, against many predictions about his feebleness, has quietly exerted the best influence that he can in the circumstances, with an angry army on one side and extreme feeling on the other. He has done a remarkable job and we should not underestimate him or some of his colleagues as they attempt to cope with well nigh impossible circumstances.
  What do we do? We are a responsible nation, active in all the great world forums. We must do our humanitarian best, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox,

  241
  and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Oxford, said. We must play our full part in the United Nations development programme. It was useful that the right reverend Prelate spoke, because the Churches must get involved and talk to the moderate leaders of Islam, although I am not sure how that will work. We are always told what a moderate religion Islam is and how Islamic and Christian people lived in close harmony—indeed, in syncretic worship—for a lot of history. Is it not possible for the forces of moderate Islam to have some curb on the wilder people and their cruel jihad and obsessions against the Christian minorities?
  Finally, we have to remain vigilant not just for humanitarian reasons, but for reasons of global stability. Indonesia is a volatile area. The great oil routes to the Asian powers pass through the Molucca straits. China is beginning to import ever more oil and will not tolerate any intervention in its imports of oil from the Gulf. Other great nations will be involved. The situation is full of dangers for global stability, as well as dangers and horrors for the people living in the area. It is not easy to see how any neat programme can be worked out to solve the problems, but by debating them and showing our concern, trying to stretch out to meet some of the hideous problems that have been so graphically described, at least we are doing our little bit.
  8.24 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this evening's debate. It is over a year since the House debated the subject of Indonesia, and, as noble Lords will be only too aware, Indonesia has seen dramatic changes over that period. I also thank all those who have participated in the debate. Each in their diverse way has made a special contribution to issues of humanitarian importance. I very much welcome this opportunity to set out the Government's policy towards Indonesia.
  In 1999, the country took major steps towards full democracy, with its first genuinely multi-party elections in over 40 years in June last year. We contributed over £2 million, focusing on support for the independent electoral commission, voter education and domestic monitoring. We are actively fostering UK-Indonesian parliamentary links. Several groups of Indonesian MPs visited the UK this year, and my honourable friend Mark Fisher visited Jakarta for a seminar to discuss alternative parliamentary models.
  The International Parliamentary Union's conference in Jakarta this October will mark a watershed in Indonesia's re-engagement with the world's parliamentary movement.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked about the Indonesian economic situation. While still fragile, the macro-economic picture is improving, with positive growth and low inflation, although foreign investment
  242
  has yet to recover. The agriculture sector is thriving, taking on many who might otherwise be unemployed. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said about the picture having looked bleak in the past but now changing.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also referred to East Timor. The terrible events in East Timor last August and September have left deep scars, but the territory is now well on the way to independent statehood. The UK continues to make a substantial contribution. We have provided £6.5 million in emergency aid and a further £12 million over three years. As tonight's debate is focused on Indonesia and time is short, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go into detail on that but I shall respond in writing to the specific points that have been made.
  We are pleased that more than 160,000 refugees have returned to East Timor from West Timor. Those remaining must be free to choose whether to stay or return without intimidation from militia groups. Our Ambassador has raised the issue with the Indonesian Government.
  Abdurrahman Wahid became Indonesia's first democratically elected President on 22nd October 1999. I very much endorse the supportive comments that have been made about him by a number of noble Lords. He moved quickly to appoint a government of national unity. He gave Indonesia its first civilian Minister of Defence in over 40 years and created a new Ministry for Human Rights, headed by a former political prisoner from Aceh. The new Attorney-General is pursuing human rights cases, although much remains to be done.
  I very much welcome the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford about the considerable efforts being made to promote religious tolerance. I should say to my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead that President Wahid has responded to our inquiries and reaffirmed his commitment to secure lasting peace between the two communities through dialogue.
  The new government have also taken positive steps towards separating the police from the military. They have advanced by six months the proposed transfer of the police from the Ministry of Defence to the President's office. We are also providing practical support. A senior British police officer began his attachment at the British Embassy on 1st June, co-ordinating with United States and Japanese initiatives. He will help the police develop a strategic vision for change and a road map for implementation. A proper democratic and accountable police force is key to proper human rights observance. Police reform is only one part of our efforts to support wider governance reform.
  So I would like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others that the Department for International Development is working closely with the Government of Indonesia, the United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank on governance reform through a

  243
  "governance partnership". That is extremely important, offering expertise and resources in response to Indonesian Government priorities and through a forum which co-ordinates donor support.
  We want to work in ways which help broaden the constituency for reform and support the processes that will achieve that. Our help is demand-led. We and other international players will be looking to respond to Indonesian requests rather than trying to impose models or solutions from outside. So the help that we are seeking to give President Wahid is real and it is hoped that it will help him to deliver many of the things which noble Lords have identified that Indonesia needs. Despite the tremendous achievements over the last year, key challenges remain for President Wahid's democratic government.
  I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her sad and detailed account of recent developments in Maluku and for the tragic details outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The recent escalation of violence after a period of relative calm illustrates the fragility of the spirit of reconciliation that had begun to take hold in Ambon. We deplore the loss of all life resulting from the latest violence and share the concern of many noble Lords at the arrival of extremists from outside Maluku.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and a number of other noble Lords have asked the Government to encourage the Indonesian Government to allow an independent international investigation into the situation in Maluku. President Wahid is aware of the difficulties caused by such adverse outside influences and the need to address the difficulties they present. The violence in Maluku is an internal matter for the Indonesian authorities. Any proposed international investigation, no matter how independent, would be seen as biased by one community or the other. The solution must come from within.
  The international community's role lies in supporting reconciliation and rehabilitation. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, my noble friend Lord Clarke and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will be pleased to hear that EU representatives called on the Indonesian Government on 12th June to remind them of their responsibility to maintain law and order and to request an investigation and immediate steps to bring the perpetrators to justice. We have encouraged the Indonesians to pursue conflict resolution work in the communities concerned.
  As part of the international effort through the UNDP, we have already funded two conferences promoting reconciliation in Maluku, which took place between 28th March and 3rd April. The BBC recently held a UK-funded seminar on objective conflict reporting for journalists in Maluku. The DfID has also seconded a specialist to work with UNDP to establish mechanisms for managing the UN humanitarian response and that of the international community
  244
  within a framework agreed by the Indonesian Government. We stand ready to help with further conflict prevention projects, where appropriate.
  The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Howell, rightly raised the issue of Aceh. We welcomed the Memorandum of Understanding on Aceh, signed between the Indonesian Government and the Free Aceh Movement in Geneva on 12th May establishing a "humanitarian pause". That is an encouraging step which we hope will stem or at least reduce the violence and pave the way for serious, detailed negotiations on the future of Aceh. However, although an important breakthrough, that is clearly just a first step on a long road.
  UNDP has agreed to act as the co-ordinator for international humanitarian assistance for the people of Aceh and plans to hold a donor round-table in the next few days. But the level of human rights abuses committed in Aceh by members of both the security forces and the Free Aceh Movement and the outcome of the Bantaqiah trial need to be addressed. A thorough overhaul of the military is essential if peace is finally to return to the province.
  Although the situation in Maluku and Aceh dominate the headlines, problems exist elsewhere in the region, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Representatives of the West Papuan people recently held a conference at which they asserted West Papua's independence, and ethnic unrest has increased in Central Sulawesi, as a number of noble Lords mentioned. The powerful earthquake in Bengkulu province, following on from the recent earthquake in Eastern Central Sulawesi and the floods in West Timor, add to the mounting list of problems facing the government. DfID contributed £250,000 towards the relief effort for the Bengkulu earthquake and our Ambassador in Jakarta will be visiting the province next week. I am not able to give the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, further details today in relation to DfID's contribution to West Timor but I shall write to him about that because time is pressing this evening.
  The transformation of Indonesia toward a full democracy is well on the way. That is bound to be a turbulent process. There will be setbacks as well as successes. We and international partners are actively engaged in supporting that process. We shall continue to help, where we can, to consolidate the advances under way. It is important that we underpin, and not undermine, Indonesia's emerging democracy at this historic turning point.
  When he visited London on 1st February, President Wahid made clear his absolute commitment to resolving the country's regional conflicts through dialogue and reconciliation in order to create a peaceful, democratic and prosperous future for all the people of Indonesia. I endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the quiet and solid

  245
  way in which that appears to be being done. I agree with him also that it would be unwise to underestimate just how much President Wahid has been able to achieve.
  While we applaud that, there will be no blank cheques. Where we have concerns, we will share these fully and frankly, as between friends. The challenges facing President Wahid and his team are daunting. It
  246
  is only right that Indonesian reformers should look to the international community for support. They must not fail.

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill [H.L.]
  Reported from the Joint Committee with an amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.

  Textile and Clothing Industry: Support Package
  Textile and Clothing Industry: Support Package
  Committee for Ethnic Minority Employment in Film
  Committee for Ethnic Minority Employment in Film
  Millennium Dome Additional Funding: Direction
  Millennium Dome Additional Funding: Direction
  Organic Farming Scheme: Grant Eligibility
  Organic Farming Scheme: Grant Eligibility
  Sea Defence and Flood Control Expenditure
  Sea Defence and Flood Control Expenditure
  House of Lords Reform: Proposed Joint Committee
  House of Lords Reform: Proposed Joint Committee
  Tuberculosis Immunisation
  Tuberculosis Immunisation
  Medicines: Cost of Blister Packs
  Medicines: Cost of Blister Packs
  Aspirin: Comparative Costs
  Aspirin: Comparative Costs
  Science Enterprise Centres
  Science Enterprise Centres
  Corruption Law: Reform
  Corruption Law: Reform
  Conventional Arms Transfer Register: UK Return
  Conventional Arms Transfer Register: UK Return
  Child Poverty
  Child Poverty
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars