Sitting of 17 March 2000

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

  Safeguards for Children
  [Relevant documents: Report and Summary of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the former County Council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974—Lost in Care (HC 201); Local Authority Circular 99/33—The Quality Protects Programme: Transforming Children's Services 2000/01; The Government's Objectives for Children's Social Services, Department of Health, September 1999; Explanatory Notes to the Care Standards Bill [Lords] and Children (Leaving Care) Bill [Lords].]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  9.33 am
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Promoting the well-being of children in our country, and protecting them from harm, are fundamental responsibilities of all hon. Members. We can—we frequently do—disagree on many things, but not, I hope, when it comes to safeguarding children. Children may make up only 20 per cent. of our population, but they represent 100 per cent. of our future.
  Safeguarding children has been one of the Government's top priorities since taking office. The approach that we have taken has recognised that the physical health and mental well-being of all children is closely linked to wider issues of poverty and disadvantage. It has recognised the need to ensure that all children, wherever they are, get the best possible start in life. It has also involved major reforms of the public care system, and, in the framework of criminal law, provided better protection for children from those who would harm them, either physically or sexually.
  All those reforms have been developed and implemented in partnership with a wide variety of organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors. Safeguarding children can never be the sole preserve of any one organisation. It is the responsibility of us all to discharge the obligation that we owe to our young people. The Government intend to discharge our responsibilities to the fullest possible extent, and to work with everyone who shares our ambition to create a safer and more secure environment in which children can thrive and prosper.
  Our objectives must always be clear and well focused. First, we must never allow the appalling situation that occurred in north Wales to happen again.
  Secondly, we must ensure that the statutory agencies effectively protect children from harm at all times and in all places. To do that, children's social services must be of the highest quality, well managed and staffed by
  624
  well-qualified people working to the best models of both practice and policy. The standards currently set by the best must become the norm, not the exception.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has, so far, identified exclusively north Wales as an area where very great damage has been done to children. Does he accept that there are other areas—sadly, even in my own county of Cheshire, and in the adjacent county of Staffordshire—where similar events have occurred?
  Mr. Hutton: I accept that. In a few minutes, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall comment on the wider situation. He may know that, in England, there are 32 on-going police inquiries into aspects of child abuse, including physical abuse. The situation in England is very serious, and I shall be dealing with it later in my speech.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have to ensure that the standards of the best become the norm, rather than the exception. That is certainly the objective both of the Department of Health and of the entire Government.
  Our third objective is to ensure that those who harm children are punished severely and prevented from working with children again.
  If we are to succeed in implementing those changes, we will need a powerful change in the culture of children's social services, so that the pursuit of excellence becomes routine and second best will never be good enough. Although I think that that process of change is well under way, more progress obviously still has to be made. I shall return to that theme in a few moments.
  There is nothing revolutionary in this approach, or in the principles by which we are working. Those principles are the building blocks for a successful life—which is what we as parents try to give our own children. I am sure that all hon. Members subscribe to those basic principles.
  We must nevertheless compare those basic principles with the tragic childhoods recorded in Sir Ronald Waterhouse's report, "Lost in Care". His report bears witness to childhoods filled with fear, abuse, violence and misery—to childhoods destroyed by betrayal of trust and by administrative incompetence. We should, therefore, begin this debate by reminding ourselves of the key findings of the Waterhouse report on the abuse of children in care.
  In Clwyd, there was widespread sexual abuse of boys, and to a lesser extent of girls, in local authority and privately run children's residential establishments and schools and in a national health service psychiatric unit. There was no evidence of persistent sexual abuse in Gwynedd. However, many children in children's residential establishments in both Clwyd and Gwynedd were subjected to physical abuse. Sexual and physical abuse occurred also in a small number of foster homes in Clwyd and Gwynedd. That disastrous catalogue of neglect and abuse is the reason for today's debate. Together, we must ensure that abuse on that scale can never happen again.
  We owe our thanks to Sir Ronald Waterhouse and his team for their determination to document so meticulously the mistreatment of children in north Wales over so many years. We must also acknowledge that all of us have failed those children and the many others who have suffered in

  625
  care elsewhere. Too sadly, we know that that case was not unique, and that, across the country, police forces and social services departments are investigating allegations of past abuse. The Government are determined to learn the lessons of the inquiry. We shall do all that we can to stamp out child abuse and create better safeguards for children.
  Sir Ronald Waterhouse has made 72 recommendations. Many of them echo those made by Sir William Utting in "People Like Us"—his report on the review of safeguards for children living away from home. The Utting review was commissioned at the same time as the Waterhouse inquiry.
  "People Like Us" made 20 key recommendations and more than 130 other recommendations, with the principal aim of improving protection for children living away from home. The Government published their response to "People Like Us" in November 1998, setting out a detailed and comprehensive programme of policy and management changes across Government to deliver a safer environment for all children living away from home. We are pursuing that programme with vigour. We are already taking forward many of the recommendations in the Waterhouse report through existing legislation, such as the Protection of Children Act 1999, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) played such a crucial role in taking through the House, and through new legislative initiatives such as the Care Standards Bill and the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, as well as through the quality protects programme and the children first programme in Wales. I shall describe all those initiatives briefly in a few moments.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister will be aware that many arguments have been made about advocacy. The Waterhouse report recommends that an independent advocacy service should be available to any complainant or affected child who wishes to have it. When will that be in place?
  Mr. Hutton: The right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an important aspect of the Waterhouse recommendations. I am not announcing the Government's response to the recommendations today. We hope to do that early in the summer. I hope that he can wait until then for the details. The Waterhouse report did not call for the creation of a statutory right to advocacy, but we are reviewing the complaints procedures under section 26 of the Children Act 1989 and the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 for adult social services.
  That is part of a continuing programme in the Department. We shall need to consider it carefully in the context of what Sir Ronald Waterhouse has said. We are looking carefully, in the context of quality protects and children first, at how we can encourage local authorities to develop more effective advocacy services for looked-after children. That work is under way, but we shall respond more fully to Sir Ronald Waterhouse's recommendations when we publish our response early in the summer.
  We are also fully involving the ministerial task force on safeguarding children in considering all 72 of the report's recommendations to see what further steps we can take to safeguard children. The task force is helping us to identify
  626
  where further action is needed and to establish key priorities. It has already met twice since the report was published and has identified the following priority areas where further action is needed: first, on a commissioner for looked-after children; secondly, on complaints procedures; thirdly, on independent advocacy services, which the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) referred to; fourthly, on human resources issues; and fifthly, on the future role of residential care as a placement choice.
  Further work is being done on all those areas and I am liaising closely with my ministerial colleagues across Government to ensure that our response to the report is comprehensive and cohesive.
  Ann Clwyd: Six children from my constituency were at those homes and were sexually abused. I am particularly concerned about the role of the insurers in suppressing two major reports—the Cartrefle report and the Jillings report. Had they been published, that abuse might have been discovered much earlier. The role of the insurers in suppressing that information was a disgrace.
  Mr. Hutton: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Waterhouse report made some specific recommendations on that aspect of the tragic events in north Wales. I assure her that the Government are looking closely at those parts of the recommendations. Our response on that will be part of the full response that we publish in the summer. I am conscious of the broad consensus of concern that has been expressed on that aspect of the terrible events. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we take those concerns very seriously.
  We took two immediate steps on the day of publication of the Waterhouse report. First, we extended the Department of Health's consultancy index—the list of individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children. That enabled Ministers to include on the index a number of individuals named in the report who had been convicted of offences against children or against whom a clear finding had been made and who had not already been referred to the index by previous employers. Some of those individuals should have been referred to the index many years ago.
  Secondly, we took immediate steps to check that those individuals named in the report who had been convicted of offences against children or against whom a clear finding had been made and whose current whereabouts or employment status were not clearly known were not currently working in regulated services with access to children.
  In the days immediately after publication, the Government distributed many copies of the report to ensure that it was easily accessible to all those who needed to read it. Copies have been sent to all local authorities, chief constables, health authorities and NHS trusts.
  Ms Debra Shipley: The consultancy index is clearly important. The provisions of the Protection of Children Act 1999 allowing for the updating of the index are not yet operational, because many things need to be done first. I understand that it is hoped that they will come on-stream in the summer. Will my

  627
  hon. Friend tell us when? Will the index be updated before the Department for Education and Employment's pilot schemes for summer activities for young people are under way?
  Mr. Hutton: I pay tribute again to the work that my hon. Friend did in ensuring that the Protection of Children Act 1999 reached the statute book. She has raised two issues. The first is when the Act will become operational. There are a range of measures in the Care Standards Bill designed to extend protection to vulnerable adults, based on the provisions in the Bill that she took through the House. We are trying to ensure that the new protection of vulnerable adults and the Protection of Children Act measures are consistent. I am afraid that it is likely that the implementation date for the Protection of Children Act might slip a little into the autumn, because we need to ensure that the two measures are consistent.
  The second issue is the updating of the names on the list. That work is well under way. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that, as part of her measure, we agreed that it was appropriate to review all the existing names on the list to ensure that they were suitable for inclusion on the new list that will be maintained under the terms of the 1999 Act.
  Ms Shipley: I am grateful for that clarification. There are implications for the pilot schemes for outdoor activities run by the Department for Education and Employment. I hugely welcome those excellent schemes, which are the way forward. I fear that if the Department for Education and Employment is not able to draw on the measures in the 1999 Act, it will have insufficient powers to conduct proper vetting. The 1999 list and the Department for Education and Employment's measures go a long way to protecting children in such situations, but some people will not be covered. I should be grateful for clarification on that.
  Mr. Hutton: We may need further discussions on that within the Department and with Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment. When I said that there might be a slight delay in implementing the Protection of Children Act, I was trying to be candid with my hon. Friend and tell her how things were going. We may be able to implement the Protection of Children Act slightly earlier, but at the moment it is not entirely clear whether or not that will be possible. However, given the obvious need for synergy between provisions in the Protection of Children Act and measures for the protection of vulnerable adults in the Care Standards Bill, it is important that we try to get it right. Guiding us throughout is our determination to make the protection of children our top priority, as I have said this morning. The concerns that my hon. Friend has raised will be taken seriously in the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the Minister clarify that he is saying that in the summer, or perhaps after a short delay in the autumn, the Protection of Children Act will be fully operational and that certificates from the criminal records agency will be available?
  Mr. Hutton: I am not sure that I can be quite that specific this morning. We still need to resolve a number
  628
  of issues. My hon. Friend's Protection of Children Act may need to be amended in the light of discussions in another place about the scheme for the protection of vulnerable adults. I am trying to be as honest as I can with the House, but I cannot go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to do. We certainly hope that the main provisions of the Act will be implemented in the autumn, but obviously we are keeping the situation under careful review.
  Our immediate actions on the publication of the Waterhouse report were necessary to safeguard children from individuals who had been found to have harmed children in north Wales in the past, but those actions in themselves could not solve all the problems described in the report, which are bigger than any one individual or group of individuals. They are rooted in systematic failure. The tragedy is that we know that the children in north Wales were not alone in suffering in this way.
  The clear evidence is that too many children in the past were failed by the very services that should have been there to help them. There has been too much inconsistent quality and poor management in children's services. We know from reports such as "People Like Us" and "Lost in Care", and from the shocking testimony of young people who have suffered abuse in children's homes, that the risks for children living away from home in the 1970s and 1980s were seriously underestimated.
  We cannot dismiss these as problems of the past, however. In the 1990s, evidence from social services inspection and joint review reports of children's services show continuing problems—and not only in children's homes.
  Social services inspectorate reports and joint reviews have demonstrated inconsistencies, both within and between authorities. They have shown poor assessment, planning and case recording, which has led to very unfocused work with families; decisions about who gets a service are often made on a haphazard basis; and poor planning for looked-after children has resulted in unnecessary delays and inappropriate placements.
  That is why is September 1998 we launched quality protects, which is a programme to help local authorities improve the management and delivery of children's social services. We also announced that the programme would be supported by a £375 million new special children's grant, which is being paid to local authorities over three years. A similar programme, children first, is under way in Wales.
  Quality protects is part of our wider plans, detailed in our White Paper "Modernising Social Services", to tailor services to real needs, delivered efficiently and to the highest standards. Today's public services have to be shaped around the people who use them—not the other way around. Social change, growing public expectations, an ageing population and shifts in family structures all call for a modernised system of social care.
  That is why when we launched quality protects we announced for the first time new Government objectives and specific targets for children's services. That was a major step forward which has provided a clear framework for developing local services. The failures in the system also called for a new framework of legal protections for children and that is precisely what we are delivering.

  629
  The Protection of Children Act 1999 will place the Department of Health's consultancy index on a statutory footing. Regulated child care providers will be required to check the names of anyone they propose to employ in posts involving regular contact with children against the index and DFEE's List 99, which is already on a statutory footing. People placed on the new list will not be able to work with children. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, the Department of Health is working toward implementation of the Protection of Children Act later this year.
  In particular, we want to provide greater protection and care for the most vulnerable children and families. This is why we recently introduced The Care Standards Bill, which has at its heart two key aims: first, to protect vulnerable people from abuse and neglect; and secondly, to promote the highest standards of quality in the care that people receive.
  The Bill provides for the establishment of a new independent national body, the National Care Standards Commission, which will have significant responsibilities for safeguarding children. All children's homes will be regulated and subjected to rigorous inspections. This will include local authority homes, which are currently exempt, and small private children's homes for fewer than four children. That loophole in the current law has long been considered a scandal, and rightly so. We shall not wait for the establishment of the commission to bring small private homes within regulation. As soon as we have Royal Assent for the Bill, we shall bring them within the current regulatory regime.
  Good quality care must be provided in all children's homes, whether they are in the private or voluntary sector, or run by local authorities. Children must be protected from abuse and their welfare promoted, whoever is responsible for running the home. In the past, problems have occurred in all types of homes. In future, all homes will have to meet the same rigorous standards.
  The Bill will also introduce for the first time regulatory regimes for fostering agencies and for residential family centres. The National Care Standards Commission will also regulate the crucial and very specialised work of voluntary adoption agencies, in a way similar to the current system operated by the social services inspectorate.
  In recognition of its role in safeguarding children, the National Care Standards Commission will appoint a children's rights director, whose job it will be to ensure that children's rights and welfare are at the heart of all its responsibilities for regulating children's services. The children's rights director will provide a crucial function in being the person who will be there when children or staff have concerns or suspicions about what may be happening in a children's home or other service. The creation of this new post in England is very much in the spirit of the Waterhouse report's recommendations.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already announced that we will also use the Care Standards Bill to implement Sir Ronald's Waterhouse first recommendation, that an independent children's commissioner for looked-after children in Wales should be appointed.
  630
  We believe that the appointment of the children's rights director in England and the children's commissioner for Wales will act as significant additional safeguards for looked-after children.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I was tempted to intervene earlier when my hon. Friend said that the Government were committed to appointing a commissioner for looked-after children. Waterhouse places no limit on the commissioner in respect of looked-after children or other children. When one considers that some children are not looked after, but on the at-risk registers, there is a strong case for the children's commissioner having a wider remit for the welfare of all children.
  Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend will be aware that in Wales, these issues will ultimately be the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales. We have the primary responsibility to make legislation for Wales, but we do so in close consultation with the National Assembly. I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend's initial observation. The context of the Waterhouse report is specific and clear: it is about looked-after children. That is what Sir Ronald Waterhouse was investigating. It is certainly our view that the appointment of the commissioner in Wales and the children's rights director in England are consistent with the spirit of the Waterhouse recommendations.
  Ms Shipley: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement about the commissioner in Wales. Does he agree that the rest of the United Kingdom also needs a commissioner?
  Mr. Hutton: The establishment of the children's rights director in England will closely mirror the role of the commissioner for looked-after children in Wales. I understand that the National Assembly for Wales is still working on the details of what the new commissioner should do. There is a danger of focusing on job titles when it is more important to establish the functions of the children's rights director in England and the commissioner for looked-after children in Wales.
  We are satisfied that the post of children's rights director is a significant breakthrough in children's welfare in England. We are happy to consult a wide variety of organisations on the director's precise role. Against the background of the appalling abuse and violence inflicted on children in north Wales, this is a significant step forward, and very much in line with the Waterhouse recommendations.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Is the Minister aware that some children's charities are concerned that there may be a difference between the commissioner and the director? I appreciate what he says about titles being less important than the responsibilities and duties of the position, so can he confirm that the duties will be exactly the same in England and in Wales?
  Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman is a late convert to the cause of devolution—he opposed the enactment of the Government of Wales Act 1998. He will be aware that the National Assembly for Wales is responsible for what the commissioner will do in Wales. It is not a decision

  631
  for Ministers in my Department. Job titles should not dominate this debate. The most important thing is what the new officers will do to enhance the welfare and well-being of children. The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is more important to focus on the substance of the job rather than the title conferred by legislation.
  Mr. Wigley: The powers of the National Assembly will be constrained by any statutory powers regarding the commissioner. Can the Minister assure us that, if it is the wish of the National Assembly, the commissioner can have a wider remit than just looked-after children, especially in view of the immensely worrying conclusion in the report that
  a significant number of children regarded life in care, even at Bryn Estyn, as distinctly better than life at home..?
  Can he assure us that the statutory underpinning will not debar the National Assembly from conferring that wider remit?
  Mr. Hutton: I think that I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales dealt with all those issues in the House a few days ago, when he explained that it was our intention to table amendments to the Care Standards Bill to allow the establishment of a commissioner for looked-after children in Wales and that we would look for the earliest opportunity to carry out the wish of the Assembly to establish a commissioner with a wider remit, in line with the manifesto commitment of the Labour party in Wales. I do not want to add to what my right hon. Friend said.
  We have been concerned for some time about the support that care leavers receive from local authorties. Every year, about 5,000 young people aged 16 and 17 leave the care of local authorities. There has been an increasing trend to discharge young people from care early. The proportion of care leavers aged 16 to 18 who leave care at the age of 16 increased from 33 per cent. in 1993 to 46 per cent. in 1998. That is completely unacceptable and the trend must be reversed. It is undoubtedly one of the reasons why so many children leave care without a single qualification and why so many find themselves unemployed and ultimately homeless.
  The Government believe that care leavers ought to be able to expect as much support from their "parent"—the local authority—as any young person would receive from their own parents. That is why the Children (Leaving Care) Bill gives local authorities a new duty to assess and meet their needs, from the essentials for living—accommodation and maintenance—through to their needs for development, including education, training, any special needs, and the ordinary skills that all children have to learn in order to be able to live independently: how to shop, how to manage a budget, how to cater for themselves.
  The Bill obliges local authorities to provide a young person's adviser and a pathway plan for all eligible young people. The plan will map out a route to independence, including consideration of when they might be ready to leave care. The new financial arrangements ensure that there will no longer be any incentive to push young people out of care until they are ready to go, but they will not be forced to stay in care: the system will be built around their individual needs.
  Beacon status has recently been awarded to four councils for their excellence in helping care leavers: Suffolk, Wakefield, Kensington and Chelsea, and
  632
  Westminster. The specialist leaving care teams in those local authorities have excelled in developing effective partnerships with statutory and voluntary sector bodies to deliver high-quality services in housing, health and education; in developing innovative methods to assist care leavers in preparing and planning for adult life; in developing initiatives on education and employment for young people and providing basic skills training and intensive support to sustain them on college and training placements; and in involving young people in shaping and influencing the development of the services.
  I want to pay a special tribute today not only to the staff working in those four authorities, but to all those people throughout the country who work so hard to promote the best interests of young people in care. Their hard work and dedication rarely get any mention when we discuss these issues. It is right that their commitment should be acknowledged today.
  Mr. Chris Ruane: About six weeks ago, a worker in a care home who had been sexually assaulted by a young resident came to see me. I welcome my hon. Friend's support for people who work with children in care. What will the Government do to protect those who work in homes, often with disturbed children?
  Mr. Hutton: It is ultimately the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe working environment for the employees, and we certainly encourage local authorities to do that. My hon. Friend represents a Welsh constituency, but he might be interested to know that in England we have convened a special advisory group to assist the Department in tackling issues of violence against social care workers. It is a high-powered group under the chairmanship of Chris Davies, who is a distinguished leader of social services in England. He is considering precisely those issues, and I hope to have a report from him soon about what further steps we can take to protect the social care work force in England. I do not know what initiatives are under way in Wales, as that is ultimately the responsibility of the National Assembly.
  Social care workers do some of the most important jobs in our country, helping and dealing with some of the most vulnerable, and sometimes the most difficult, people in our society. They are entitled to look to us—we are ultimately responsible for their employment—to make their working environment safe. They do a difficult job on our behalf and we have clear responsibilities towards them.
  We are determined that all authorities should give care leavers high-quality services. Local authorities were asked to explain, in their management action plans relating to this year's use of the children's special grant in England, how they were improving services to care leavers and putting in place plans to implement the new arrangements.
  The new arrangements for young people in and leaving care will link closely with the development of the new ConneXions service for all young people aged 13 to 19, which was launched earlier this year. This new, joined-up, modern service will connect services provided locally to young people. It will radically transform the support that young people receive as they make the transition from adolescence to adult and working life. The ConneXions service will raise the expectations and aspirations of all young people, of all abilities and from all backgrounds,

  633
  by ensuring that they receive the support and advice they need, when and where they need it, to make a success of their lives.
  It is a flagship venture for cross-Government and cross-agency working; effectively, we are trying to "wire up" public services for young people.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend said that young people up to the age of 19 would be assisted. However, did not Lord Hunt recently assure the other place that the costs of education, training and employment would be paid for up to the age of 21 and, in certain circumstances, beyond that?
  Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend is referring to specific provisions in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. I was referring to the new ConneXions youth service, which will provide a service up to the age of 19. The Bill will give local authorities powers to provide additional support for children who have left care, or who have been in local authority care, to support their education, employment and training up to the age of 21. My hon. Friend and I are talking about two separate matters. Establishing the ConneXions service will be a complex and ambitious undertaking, which will require a lot of detailed and ground-breaking work. We are determined to build on what works best.
  Two of the key developments which form part of the quality protects programme are the revision of the inter-agency guidance "Working Together To Safeguard Children" and the development of the new framework for the assessment of children in need and their families. The aim is to ensure that how we safeguard and promote the welfare of children and how we assess their needs are consistent with the approaches used for all children.
  At the end of December last year, the Government, following extensive consultation, published new guidance on inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. "Working Together to Safeguard Children" replaces the previous guidance, published in 1991, and takes account of new research, experience and legislation concerning child abuse. The new guidance emphasises the importance of agencies working together to help families and children before abuse and neglect has taken place. It provides a clear framework for social workers, the police, teachers, health service staff and others to work together and with families to secure the best possible outcomes for vulnerable children and young people. The new guidance provides a number of essential safeguards against abuse that apply in every setting in which children live away from home. Where services are not directly provided, basic safeguards should be explicitly addressed in contracts with external providers.
  In September 1999, the Department of Health issued draft new assessment guidance which focuses on assessing the needs of children and the capacity of their parents and families to respond to these needs in the short and longer term. It is underpinned by the latest knowledge of the impact that adult problems such as domestic violence, alcohol and drug misuse, mental health problems and sex offending can have on a child's development. We will be publishing the final version of the assessment framework shortly.
  634
  Both the new working together programme and the assessment framework form important components of the wide-ranging programme of work across Government to strengthen protection for children and to improve the support given to vulnerable children and families. But protection is not enough—we must ensure that all children have the love, care and support that they need for the whole of their childhoods, and that the children for whom social services are responsible gain maximum life chances from education and other opportunities.
  In particular, we want to see looked-after children achieving more at school; more care-leavers in training, education or employment; fewer moves between placements for children who have been looked after by local authorities; the level of offending among children brought right down; and, where appropriate, children being adopted without undue delay. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently announced the setting up of a ministerial group to carry out an urgent review of our adoption policy and procedures, which will report to him later this year. We also want to see better services for disabled children.
  These are tough objectives, but we believe that they are achievable; indeed, they must be achieved if we are not to fail these children. Quality protects and children first have been warmly welcomed by local authorities and the voluntary sector. No one challenges the need to transform the quality of care and the chances in life of some of those vulnerable children. The challenge is to make it happen.
  All local authorities are required each year to submit management action plans to the Department of Health. These set out their plans for modernising the management of their children's services. On 31 January, we received local authorities second management action plans. These set out how local authorities have improved their services in year 1 of the programme of quality protects, and their plans for year 2. No one expects all of these problems to be sorted out overnight; they will not be. However, all authorities must now show how they are beginning to make a real difference to the lives of looked-after children.
  In the second year of quality protects, the challenge is to fully implement the plans, improve services and achieve much better outcomes for children and young people.
  Mr. Ruane: These are admirable aims. How will the programme be monitored by central Government?
  Mr. Hutton: While I am not going to speak about children first in Wales—my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State for Wales will deal with that when he winds up—the monitoring of the management action plans in England is being done by the Department in conjunction with the social services inspectorate.
  As part of quality protects, we have employed a number of experienced regional development workers who are working across the regions of England with local authorities in improving, developing and monitoring those plans. In other words, the full monitoring arrangements that we had in the Department to check on the progress of social services are being deployed to monitor the progress of the quality protects initiative. It is a flagship initiative; it is the first time that any Government have systematically tried to get to the bottom of some of these

  635
  fundamental problems that have dogged social services in England for many years. We want the programme to work, and all the resources that we have in the Department that can be deployed to raise quality and to monitor standards in local authorities are being pointed at the quality protects programme to ensure that it is a success.
  Next year, we are increasing the grant from £75 million to £120 million. We expect to see real improvements delivered in return for these extra resources. The early evidence is that we are beginning to deliver on those objectives. We hope that, by the end of this month, all authorities will be meeting their statutory duties to inspect children's homes. We have also seen an increase in the number of adoptions, in the support being given to care leavers and in councils listening to children.
  One of the key priorities of the quality protects programme is to improve the supply and choice of placement options for looked-after children. One important choice is adoption. Research shows that, generally, adopted children make good progress through their childhood and into adulthood, compared with children who have remained in the care system. Adoption provides children with a unique opportunity for a fresh start as permanent members of new families, enjoying a sense of security and well-being so far denied them in their young lives.
  I know that the Department's circular "Adoption—Achieving the Right Balance" has had an important impact on social services. I am pleased to say that our monitoring shows that most authorities have taken action to improve their adoption services. I am pleased also that 200 more children found adoptive families in 1998–99 than in the previous year. That equates to an 11 per cent. increase. This is good news, but there is still much more to do.
  Recently, we launched the publication "Adoption Now—Messages from Research". The report shows how the nature of adoption has changed. We know that there are now few babies that need adoption. We know that many children needing adoptive families have faced great difficulties in their young lives. We are currently holding seminars, nationally and locally, to discuss the report and to consider how we can promote more co-operation between the statutory and voluntary sectors, particularly in the development of consortiums and greater collaborative working. Following the publication of the Waterhouse report, my right. hon. Friend the Prime Minister set up a ministerial group to review the operation of adoption services in England. The group will report to the Prime Minister in mid-May. A consultation paper outlining the way forward is expected to be available by the end of the year.
  We also need to ensure that good quality foster care is available. At the moment, despite the fact that there are around 32,000 existing foster carers, we have a shortage nationally. I am pleased to say that work is currently under way to develop a national foster care recruitment campaign, with a launch date planned for June. The campaign is being run by a steering group consisting of the Department of Health, the National Foster Care Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Local Government Association. This is a good example of how central and local government and the voluntary sector can work in partnership for the benefit of all. I hope that the campaign will lead more
  636
  people to consider taking up the unique challenge of caring for children from other families by becoming foster carers.
  Mr. Evans: A foster parent came to my surgery on Saturday and told me of the difficulties of placing foster children in local schools, which are usually full. Will the Minister ensure that children cared for by foster parents are able to gain access to local schools for their education?
  Mr. Hutton: We will certainly take that issue into consideration. Of course, that is also a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to consider. We want children who have been fostered to have the best possible access to schools and education and that is why, as part of quality protects, we are trying to drive up the qualifications and educational achievements of looked-after children. That is the first time that any Government have tried to do that with a specific programme of work, and access to good schools is important if we are to succeed in that.
  I am pleased that councils have begun to listen to children and young people in their care much more effectively. Listening to children helps to protect children—from harm and from low expectations. If children can speak up and are heard, abuse is less likely to happen. Children and young people demand and need to have a voice in all decisions taken about them—not just on the big issues such as education, health, and their placement, but on the day-to-day big issues for them such as pocket money, sleep-overs, and bedtimes.
  Young people can and want to contribute to making the care system more effective. Children's participation will help local authorities to provide high-quality and effective services. It will also help councils to implement one of the key responsibilities under the requirements of best value. Councils must become more responsive to the people to whom they are supplying services. I am glad to be able to tell the House that listening to children was a priority area for expenditure for the children's special grant last year, and that councils spent nearly £5 million on improving the way in which they consult looked-after children in their care. Listening to children will remain a priority area for use of the grant in future as well.
  In order to practise what we preach, we are organising a series of regional events at which I and senior members of the Department will hear directly from looked-after children. We are working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Association of Directors of Social Services and a small project team of young people to plan the events.
  We are currently reviewing the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon, and the procedure under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. A consultation document will be published shortly. The aim is to bring the two procedures more closely into line with each other and to ensure that they are effectively observed.
  The review of complaints procedures has addressed issues such as the role of the "independent person" within the existing Children Act guidance. The review has shown that there is often confusion about that role. The consultation document will discuss whether a complainant would be better served by having a statutory right to an advocacy service in formulating and pursing their

  637
  complaints. As I have already indicated, a statutory right to advocacy is being considered as part of the review of complaints procedures. Advocacy in general is a developing area and—I am glad to say in relation to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman—is a priority area for grant funding under quality protects.
  I recognise that for quality protects to be a success, authorities need to be able to recruit and retain staff. For quality protects and the whole social care modernisation agenda, local authorities and other employers need to be able to recruit and retain staff of the highest calibre and in the right numbers. A high-quality work force is essential to the delivery of high-quality services.
  We are well aware of the concerns expressed in the media and directly to us by local government about the shortages of social workers and other care staff which jeopardise our modernisation plans and quality protects in particular. It is important to see that against a general background in which the social care work force have been fairly stable. The latest data available show vacancies for social workers are at the lowest level for a decade. Vacancies have declined from 10 per cent. in 1990 to just over 7 per cent. in 1998. Turnover rates over the same period have also declined from 14 per cent. to about 8.5 per cent. Those overall trends do mask particular difficulties in some service sectors and some parts of the country, which may be affected by the demands of service developments such as quality protects.
  It is the responsibility of local authorities, in the first place, to address their work force requirements. The Government are not the employer. We are therefore particularly pleased that the Local Government Association has recently taken an initiative to set up a work force task group with the express purpose of identifying, for implementation as soon as possible, a series of practical measures that can have a more immediate impact.
  We also recognise that the Government have a role to play. We have therefore agreed with the LGA to build on this early work and, together with the wider employment interests across the whole of social care, to work on a programme of action for implementation over a longer time scale. We are therefore making arrangements for a work force summit to be held on 22 March. Among the issues to be discussed in that summit will be the image and status of social care, including conditions of service, family friendly employment policies, encouraging return to work, developments in the existing work force, the skills mix, and the problems of recruiting students to social work.
  The Government are of course already taking action to raise the quality of social workers and other social care staff. For example, we are funding a top management development programme for senior managers in social services. The Care Standards Bill provides for the creation of a new General Social Care Council. That body will have a statutory duty to promote high standards of conduct and practice through its codes of conduct and practice for all social care staff. We have already commissioned the initial drafting of those codes. The council will have the powers necessary to ensure that social work training is fit for the purpose. In addition, we are currently considering the reports of external consultants whom we engaged to advise us on the content
  638
  and delivery of professional social work training. Those reports will be published with the forthcoming Green Paper on quality issues in social services at Easter and further announcements are likely in the summer.
  The Government accept that to build the new ethos of excellence in social services that we all desire, we need the highest standards among all of the social care work force. The essence of modernising social services lies in raising standards. We must have a new ethos of excellence, not of excuses. We must drive standards up and drive failure out. At their best, social services authorities are capable of just that sort of excellence. That is why we will issue a quality strategy Green Paper for social services.
  The quality strategy is the Government's next step in their modernising agenda for social care. It will set a national framework for raising local standards, reducing unacceptable variations in practice and achieving an ethos of excellence in social services. It will build on and consolidate existing initiatives to improve quality. It will consider the creation of a new institution to support the drive for quality—a social care institute for excellence. The institute would provide authoritative guidance about effective and efficient social care interventions and help to guide local authorities through the modernisation process.
  No one who has read the Waterhouse report could fail to be shocked by the catalogue of abuse it records of children in care in the former county council areas of Clwyd and Gwynedd. That abuse destroyed young lives over a period of more than 20 years. I repeat that this Government are determined to learn the lessons of that inquiry. We must use it as a catalyst for meaningful and radical change in children's services. The report should serve as a warning of the constant need for vigilance, of the need to ensure that children being looked after can always talk freely about their concerns and worries, and of our duty to listen to them and to treat them as we would our own children.
  Safeguarding children is an absolute priority for this Government. Through quality protects, we are taking action now to get the management and services right. Through our legislative initiatives, we will enshrine real safeguards for vulnerable children and young people on the statute book. Through the ministerial task force, we are actively considering our response to all of the outstanding recommendations of the Waterhouse report, which we hope to publish early in the summer.
  In conclusion, I would echo the words of Jo Williams of the Association of Directors of Social Services, who said recently that
  the age of innocence is past.
  We must shoulder our responsibilities now for the children of this generation and for the future. There can be no more excuses. The events recorded in this unhappy report must never be allowed to happen again.
  10.29 am
  Mr. Philip Hammond: The Minister started his speech by emphasising the consensus that we have across the Chamber in dealing with matters of children's safety and protection. Indeed, there was little in his speech with which I could disagree. Where we do disagree, is about the modalities of achieving those safeguards and that protection, and I hope that the Minister and the House will take it as read that,

  639
  even though we have questions to ask and, perhaps, criticisms to voice, we are at one with the Government in their determination to ensure that vulnerable children are properly protected and safeguarded and in our recognition that achieving that is a responsibility that we must all share.
  This debate is being held in the aftermath of the publication of the Waterhouse report. The report was a very long time coming and, as the Minister said, many of its conclusions had been anticipated, by the previous Government as well as by this one. Many initiatives are already in hand that seek to address the problems that Waterhouse identified.
  However, nothing prepared any of us for seeing in black and white the horror of what went on in north Wales over a long period. We had to read a catalogue of abuse, a damning indictment of the failure of our statutory public services to protect the most vulnerable in our society. The report was an exposé of the violation of the concept of care by authorities in a place of safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) described the report as the greatest scandal to hit the modern welfare state.
  Mr. Ruane: The hon. Gentleman mentioned consensus, and I do not want to break it, but I want to put matters into their historical context. Paragraph 47.18 of the summary document states that
  in 1979, the new Government announced its intention to reduce substantially the number of bureaucratic controls in order to give local authorities more choice and flexibility.
  The next paragraph states that a "climate of disengagement" was thus created. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the child abuse scandals of the 1980s and 1990s were exacerbated by that Government instruction?
  Mr. Hammond: My instinctive answer is no. As I was going to go on to say, Waterhouse has exposed and uncovered dark and shameful secrets that have been buried in our society, probably for a long time. As those shameful secrets are exposed and examined, it is important that we work together to address them and to expunge such activity from our society.
  The Waterhouse report is shocking. It will have shocked many hon. Members in the most genuine sense of the word, but there is no doubt that it describes only the tip of an iceberg. The Minister confirmed that 32 other police inquiries into child abuse are under way, but we should also look on the positive side. What has been exposed so far has been acted on. Things are changing for the better. Waterhouse said so, and he described the Children Act 1989 as the springboard for many improvements in children's services.
  However, no one who has read the Waterhouse or Utting reports could possibly dispute the obvious and imperative need for still greater safeguards in the future. No one could fail to be dismayed that what is described as care should have failed so dismally to provide for so many children.
  Taken together, the Utting and Waterhouse reports identify what was in some cases the deliberate exploitation and abuse of children. The Waterhouse report is a catalogue of physical and sexual abuse. However, as the Minister also said, the reports also identify the
  640
  systematic failure of the statutory services to deliver the protection that they are charged to deliver. Sometimes, that failure was the result of political misguidedness, but more often it was the result of bureaucratic incompetence that harmed those whom the statutory authorities were supposed to help.
  The Minister referred to the haphazard arrangements for access to child care services. I should be interested to hear, when the debate is wound up much later on, whether that indicates that the Government are minded to consider the arguments for standardisation of assessment throughout the system to prevent such problems of haphazard access and differing thresholds.
  Yet there is no doubt in my mind that society as a whole has gradually woken up to the problem in its midst. There is a consensus on this issue, which we are taking forward. A growing awareness of these problems in the 1980s led to the Children Act 1989. The Secretary of State for Wales has said that the far-reaching changes of the past decade resulted directly from changed perceptions introduced by the 1989 Act. That sea change in attitude placed children at centre stage. Their well-being became the paramount consideration when arranging the affairs of families and the responsibilities of the statutory bodies dealing with them.
  The commissioning of the Utting and Waterhouse reports in the summer of 1996 by my right hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) carried forward the recognition and awareness of the problem. It demonstrated the determination on all sides of the House to address the problem, deal with it, and to expunge this shame from our society.
  The Family Law Act, the Sex Offenders Act and the Police Act all became law in 1997 and provided the foundation for legislation introduced by this Government, such as the Protection of Children Act 1999. There has been a continuum of legislation and initiatives to deal with what was gradually being revealed to the nation and to the politicians charged with its conduct.
  In anticipation of Waterhouse and in response to Utting, I am glad to say that this Government have continued that approach and have delivered further improvements to services for children. I am happy that the Government are building on what my right hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Yorks and for Charnwood started in 1996 with the commissioning of those reports.
  There has been abuse in our care system and a failure to perform the statutory duty of care with which local authorities are charged. That is especially shocking to all of us, as we share a responsibility for ensuring that bodies charged with caring for the vulnerable and taking on the role of parents discharge those responsibilities effectively and with appropriate diligence. We have to acknowledge that it is an indictment of us all that, over the years, that has not been the case.
  We must also acknowledge that most abuse suffered by children takes place in the home and at the hands of a family member. I would be the first to accept that, but we must retain a sense of proportion. Our starting point must be that the vast majority of parents are supportive and proper guardians for children, and that the family is by far the best environment in which to care for children.
  Ms Shipley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to widely accepted figures, one woman in seven experiences violence in the home in this country? Where that happens, there is a high probability that children will also experience violence in the home. That adds up to a very large number of children, and makes it clear that families in this country have real problems. Although the family is an important unit, and we support it, it is problematic and not always perfect. Violence in the home is unacceptable.
  Mr. Hammond: I agree entirely, and I do not wish to suggest that the family is a perfect unit. However, it is the preferable unit for raising children appropriately, and I shall return to the points that the hon. Lady made when I speak a little later about the arrangements for support of the family.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept the point that has just been made, but instead of lowering and modifying society's standards and mores, should not we in this House aim to raise those standards and provide the funds needed to cope with the problems that arise when things go wrong?
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I agree with what he says. I shall shortly be arguing that although we support what the Government are doing in dealing with the issues of children in care and ensuring that they are properly safeguarded, it is also important to look upstream, at the way in which families become dysfunctional. We must give families every possible support and encouragement so that children do not have to come into contact with the statutory care system in the first place.
  We recognise the problems that can exist within the home, but we believe that family life is the optimum way to bring up children. It makes sense to support families to try to avoid the possibility of children coming into contact with the care system. Once they are, however, we must maximise the use of fostering and adoption to ensure that they return as soon as possible and as often as possible to something as close as possible to a normal family life. I shall develop that theme a little later.
  In seeking to ensure the well-being and safety of children, we must look through the chain at how they come to need the support of the statutory care system, and then look at what the Government are doing to address each of the areas that I shall outline.
  First, it is axiomatic to me that we should encourage and support the family in general, and proper and appropriate parenting in particular. In that way, we will enhance the opportunity for the greatest possible number of children to be brought up within the family context without the need for statutory authorities to be involved. Secondly, we must target particular help on vulnerable families, making appropriate interventions early enough to support families in crisis and seeking to avert family breakdown. Thirdly, once family breakdown becomes inevitable, we need to have effective and appropriate mechanisms for identifying children at risk and taking rapid and effective action to protect them when their families, for whatever reason, can no longer do so.
  642
  Fourthly, as the Minister outlined in some detail, we need to ensure that there are proper safeguards for children who are looked after or are identified as being at risk. We must at all costs ensure that children do not go from the frying pan into the fire, which is clearly what happened to some of the children described in the Waterhouse report. Fifthly, effective programmes must, wherever possible, place children back into family situations through the mechanisms of adoption or fostering.
  I hope that those aspirations are uncontroversial. I hope that every hon. Member would agree that care, in itself, must not be seen as a parking ground where children end up, but that everything possible must be done to make it an interlude in their lives—a safe and secure interlude—on their way back to something better.
  We have made much of the consensus on the issue, and I have no wish to disrupt that consensus. However, the duty of the Opposition is to identify areas on which the Government should focus more or differently. I have criticisms of the Government's performance when it comes to encouragement and support for the family. Their support for the family is, at best, ambivalent. The last recognitions for marriage in our tax system have been withdrawn. There seems to be a general agenda of downgrading the value of conventional family relationships. I do not propose to engage in a debate on section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. However, last night on television I saw a Minister refusing to acknowledge that marriage is the preferable relationship in which to bring up children, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary in every study that I have seen.
  It is a debate for another day and another place whether individuals should have different views about the appropriateness of various relationships. That is not our purpose today. However, we have been talking about a child-focused, child-centred agenda. Whatever else people may say about unconventional relationships, the evidence is that when we look at the world from a child-focused point of view, the argument for conventional marriage between two parents of the opposite sex is overwhelming. I hope that at least in relation to their child protection programme, the Government will recognise the logic of such a child-centred, pro-family, pro-marriage approach.
  I was contacted yesterday by a constituent who is involved in a divorce case. She was told by a court-appointed welfare officer that her concerns about the safety of her four-year-old child in the hands of her ex-husband arose from her "abnormally stable family background". The court welfare officer then authorised unsupervised access. The father is now awaiting trial on a charge of indecently assaulting the child. That is the sort of attitude that we must tackle and change if we are genuinely to protect children in our society.
  The second area that I highlighted was help for vulnerable families—those at risk and in difficulty. I have discussed this with the Minister, and I know that he understands the value of the work of the voluntary sector in supporting families in difficulty. I have seen at close quarters the work of home start in my county of Surrey. It is an effective, low-cost solution to supporting and enhancing the care of children within families. However, financial pressures on local authority social services departments and the ending of joint funding initiatives have put pressure on many of those voluntary services and some of them are under threat. I hope that the

  643
  Minister will recognise the good sense—economic and common—of ensuring that those relatively modest local voluntary initiatives are supported. Investment in them is hugely beneficial and greatly reduces the burden on the statutory authorities further down the line.
  Thirdly, we must ensure that rapid and effective intervention mechanisms are available when children become at risk. We must recognise that, from time to time, families become dysfunctional. I acknowledge the Government's initiatives in seeking to improve the responsiveness of social services and, when appropriate, clamping down on failing authorities which have not discharged their duties.
  Support and appropriate intervention are the most sensitive issues. There is always a danger that in seeking to be effective, the statutory authorities will become heavy-handed and undermine rather than support the family. The challenge for us is to ensure that we protect children without eroding the role of parents in society.
  The focus of much of what the Minister said started from the point that I have now reached in my analysis, when the family has broken down and the child is taken into care for his or her own protection. I understand why Government thinking is focused on this area, especially in light of the findings of Utting and Waterhouse. However, that focus addresses the consequences of failure rather than directing resources at seeking to avoid failure in the structure of the family.
  Our prime responsibility is to ensure that safeguards for children in care are adequate to ensure their safety and well-being. The Government have rightly targeted legislation at that. Sometimes we are dealing with the problems of a culture of abuse, but more often there is simply a culture of despair. The quality protects initiative rightly focused attention on that culture of failure and despair, and we support the Government's initiative to change it. Statutory authorities looking after children must encourage a positive, forward-looking vision for the children in their care.
  We support the broad objectives of the Government's legislative programme. The Minister mentioned three Bills—the Care Standards Bill, the Protection of Children Bill—now the Protection of Children Act 1999—and the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. We support the underlying objectives of each of them, but we have some concerns. The Protection of Children Act passed through the House last year, but Members have not yet questioned in detail the Government's intentions on the other two Bills. We rely for information on debates in the other place. I have a few questions about those Bills.
  Is the Minister entirely satisfied that the arrangements proposed in the Care Standards Bill will allow inspection to focus properly on areas that are seen to be failing? Is he sure that the system will not bear down inappropriately on good performers but instead will focus on improving and, if necessary, dealing, perhaps dramatically, with those who are failing? Is he satisfied that the care standards commissioner will be sufficiently independent? The Minister is aware of widespread concern that we are shuffling seats, and that the same people will take on essentially the same roles under the different title of the
  644
  commission. What reassurance can he offer that the commission is a genuinely new initiative that will break with the past arrangements that so often failed us?
  Can the Minister assure us that the regulations that will govern provision for children and the standards by which they will be judged will focus on outputs, not inputs? Will they measure the quality of care delivered, rather than the nuts and bolts provided to deliver that care? Can he assure us that the proposed inspection of child minders and day care centres will not place a burden on those operations, which might lead to a reduction in provision—a concern expressed in other places?
  Do the Government propose to follow the recommendations of the Utting report by extending the Children (Leaving Care) Bill to people aged 18 to 21? When does the Minister expect to do that? Resources are tight, but it has been estimated that the cost would be modest. If we seek to emulate for children leaving care the support and protection that they could expect from natural parents, it seems logical to extend the Bill as soon as possible. Do the Government intend to use voluntary agencies to maintain contact with children once they have left care, rather than consigning the job entirely to statutory bodies?
  The Protection of Children Act 1999 is on the statute book, and the Minister has told us when he expects to implement it. I asked him about the availability of certificates from the Criminal Records Bureau because I understand that they are not expected to be available until next year. I find it difficult to see how the protection afforded by the Act can work effectively in the absence of the certificates. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the point.
  Will the Minister say whether the Government plan to deal with the loophole identified by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley)? The 1999 Act does not require vetting of voluntary sector workers. When and how does the Minister expect that loophole to be closed?
  I confess that I have not yet had a chance to read the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, which was published this week. It will create the criminal offence of seeking employment from which one is banned, as the Minister assured us would be done during the passage of the 1999 Act. I assume that it will extend to vulnerable adults, as the Care Standards Bill does. Will the Minister confirm that when the Bill is on the statute book, the Act will include criminal sanctions against those who should not apply, but do apply for jobs with children and vulnerable adults?
  Ms Shipley: I understand that the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill will cover a wide range of areas, including education, health, social care, accommodation, leisure and sporting activities, religious activities and the criminal justice system. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that Opposition Members will support that wide-ranging measure?
  Mr. Hammond: I was fortunate in confessing just before the hon. Lady's intervention that I had not had a chance to read the Bill. It would be unwise of me to give any undertaking without having read it in detail. I thank her for that information, and I shall read the Bill.

  645
  The Waterhouse report recommended an examination of the availability and adequacy of fostering. Being looked after should be seen as an interim step towards fostering and adoption—the optimum outcome for children in care who are unable, for whatever reason, to return to their natural families. Does the Minister agree that we should clear any ideological impediments to maximising fostering and adoption?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has announced our policy that children in care should have a fostering and adoption plan and that the system should be overhauled to ensure that those plans are implemented on a fast track wherever possible. No one will be written off. There will be no admission of failure, and no toleration of consigning children in care to the category "unplaceable". My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) is heading a commission set up by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring to look into these matters. We will be happy to share its findings with the Government.
  What are the Government doing? The Prime Minister responded to the Waterhouse report, and his spokesman said, in a Lobby briefing of 17 February, that the Secretaries of State for Health, for the Home Department and for Wales would meet that week to consider it. What are the Government doing to stamp out once and for all misguided, politically motivated interference in adoption and fostering, which we have seen too often in the past?
  Mr. Hutton: When the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will see that I set out what we are doing on the overhaul of adoption policy and procedures. He mentioned his policy that every child who is being looked after by a local authority should have an adoption plan. However, he will be aware that the majority of children who enter the care of a local authority return to their family within eight weeks. What is the point of such children having an adoption plan?
  Mr. Hammond: I am not talking about children in short-term local authority care, who are expected to return to their natural family. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring wants to avoid the creation or continuation of a category of children who are treated and regarded as unplaceable. As the Minister is well aware, such a category has existed and continues to exist. I am sure that he agrees that it is unacceptable. All children in care have to be regarded as being on their way to something better. Ideally, they would return to their family; where that is not an option—or not likely to be one—it is incumbent on the responsible authority to set up an appropriate plan for them to be fostered or adopted as soon as possible.
  We have a responsibility to ensure that the system works correctly and appropriately at all stages, so that we provide support as early in the chain as possible. We must protect those who cannot be, or who are not, protected by their parents, but in our zeal to do so, we must always ensure that we do not undermine the parent-child relationship which serves so well in the majority of cases.
  The married family unit remains the cornerstone of our social structure. In that context, I want to explore a little further the Government's response to the Waterhouse report. Interventions in the debate highlight the ambiguity
  646
  in what the Government have said so far. One of the central recommendations of the report was the appointment of an independent children's commissioner for Wales, whose duties should include
  ensuring that children's rights are respected through the monitoring and oversight of the operation of complaints and whistleblowing procedures and the arrangements for children's advocacy;
  and
  examining the handling of individual cases brought to the Commissioner's attention … when he considers it necessary and appropriate to do so.
  In response to a question about the report, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that:
  All parts of the House will be anxious to take action as soon as possible to act on the recommendations of the report. The Care Standards Bill and the Children (Leaving Care) Bill give us an opportunity to do so. We shall respond as soon as we possibly can … We shall implement the recommendations as soon as we possibly can.—[Official Report, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 941.]
  However, the Minister of State, Department of Health said:
  My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that Sir Ronald today recommended the appointment of an independent children's commissioner for looked-after children in Wales. Our proposal, to which my hon. Friend referred, to appoint a children's rights director to the proposed National Care Standards Commission captures the spirit of that recommendation.—[Official Report, 15 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 926.]
  The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has already pointed out that the Waterhouse report does not limit the commissioner's remit to children in care. We need more detail about the children's rights director proposed under the Care Standards Bill to test the Minister's statement that the proposal does indeed capture the spirit of the Waterhouse recommendation.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell House what discussions he has held with the National Assembly for Wales. Is he aware of the stage it has reached in its consideration of the appointment of a children's commissioner? He will know that Members of the Assembly are currently discussing that matter. What is his understanding of the Assembly's current position?
  Mr. Hammond: Although I wholly accept that the Waterhouse report addressed itself specifically to Wales, I am sure that it is understood in the House that the recommendations for Wales are equally applicable to the other countries of the United Kingdom. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister had an exchange to that effect. I accept that in Wales matters may be moving in a particular direction, but I now want to clarify whether the Government intend to follow the Waterhouse recommendations in England as well. Do they intend to limit the role of the children's rights director only to looked-after children?
  The Minister should not regard my question as sinister or as having an ulterior motive. I merely want to understand where the Government are going. Other hon. Members have pointed out that children in care are not the only ones who have problems and who need protection. I do not urge the Minister to take a route that

  647
  would involve intervention in what goes on in a normal, functional family. However, he will readily realise that, beyond children in care, there are many children who are identified as at risk. Does the Minister think that the role of the children's rights director for England might be extended beyond children in care to cover other categories of children whose well-being is already the responsibility of the statutory authorities? Would it cover children who are identified as at risk, even though they might still be looked after by their families? I ask those questions in a genuine spirit of inquiry and would be grateful for some clarification of the Minister's intentions in that matter—especially for England.
  Do the Government believe that the role of the children's rights director—or a similar position—might extend to other statutory authorities? For example, might it apply in the case involving a court welfare officer that I cited earlier? Statutory authorities other than local authority social services departments have a role in ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable children. I should be grateful for any clarification that the Minister can offer on that point.
  The thoroughness and detail of Sir Ronald Waterhouse' s inquiry mean that all the recommendations merit the closest scrutiny. It is clear that what is relevant, applicable and necessary in Wales will be so in the rest of the UK. I accept that the Government cannot answer for what will happen in Scotland, but I hope that they can assure us that the spirit of the report will be properly implemented in England and Northern Ireland.
  A comprehensive programme is already in hand—through legislation and through non-legislative initiatives—to address the wholly unacceptable situation that has existed. One of the dark secrets of our society has been exposed; we are gradually becoming aware of its extent and learning from it. Working together, we shall ensure that looked-after children are safer in future than they have been in the past.
  We must be honest with ourselves, however. As was noted during the proceedings on the Protection of Children Act 1999, promoted by the hon. Member for Stourbridge, we must realise that we shall never completely eliminate abuse, neglect or indifference. We certainly shall not eliminate incompetence—either from the statutes or from the family. We must strive constantly to combat it, while taking care that we do not destroy or undermine the structure of the family.
  The majority of parents conscientiously bring up their children—although none of us are perfect—far better than the best, most caring and well-run statutory bodies. We must not create some Orwellian nightmare society in which the authority and rights of parents are undermined by well-meaning but misplaced excesses of zeal in addressing the tiny minority who—whether through wickedness, incompetence or indifference—put at risk the children in their charge. I am sure that the Government are alert to that danger, and will ensure that the action that they take is a measured and appropriate response to the situation.
  We have a structure in place for identifying and intervening in situations where parents are failing. I believe that we need to focus more of the overall effort on refining and continuously improving that structure, and on moving further upstream to ensure proper support for families in all aspects of Government policy—national
  648
  and local—partly by providing proper, effective support to the voluntary sector, which can so often be effective and economic in helping to prevent family breakdown and its unfortunate consequences for children.
  In view of the terrible revelations of the Utting and Waterhouse reports, I entirely understand the focus of recent Government policy initiatives on looked-after children, because we as a society have obviously failed in our duty to these vulnerable children in all too many cases. In doing so we are addressing the consequences of family failure, however, and it is right that we also focus a good proportion of our attention on doing everything possible to prevent children from finding themselves in that situation.
  We look forward to a continuing programme of legislation and other initiatives to strengthen and make more effective support for the family and support for children where the family has failed. If the Government approach that programme with the clear objective of reinforcing, not undermining, the family, and strengthening the safeguards for children at risk or in care—regulating with the lightest touch compatible with achieving those objectives, and recognising and involving the skills and capabilities of the voluntary and independent sectors in delivering services within a framework of regulation and oversight provided by the statutory bodies—they will have our continued, wholehearted support.
  I hope and expect that, in 20 or 30 years' time, when the history of this inglorious episode comes to be written, there will be no perceptible breaks in the continuity of evolution of policy between Governments of different parties; because, as the Minister said at the start of his speech, if ever there was a field of endeavour where we must put aside party politics and work together in the best interests of children and families, this is it. We owe that much at least to the many people whose lives have been blighted by our collective failures of the past.
  11.12 am
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The report of Sir Ronald Waterhouse and his tribunal members Margaret Clough and Moms le Fleming is an admirable but incredibly depressing document. It recounts a story of failures at every level of children's services, as children suffered sexual and physical abuse in the knowledge that any complaint would be a waste of time.
  Everything that could be wrong was wrong. The Welsh Office, at a political and civil service level, local government officials, staff and elected members, private providers, and one critical police investigation triggered by Alison Thomas's complaint, all failed abused children appallingly.
  Waterhouse catalogues the errors meticulously and, just as meticulously, makes 72 recommendations to prevent such abuse occurring again. At last the voices of the vulnerable and abused have been heard. However, that cannot compensate them properly for the abuse that they suffered. I hope that there is some comfort for them in the opening up of this secret world of terror, and the proposals made by Waterhouse to prevent it from happening again.
  Unfortunately, the Waterhouse report probably will not be the last major investigation of child abuse in the United Kingdom. Even as I speak, police officers across England and Wales are investigating allegations of child abuse, involving, as the Minister said, 32 police teams.

  649
  It is salutary and deeply worrying to remember that Waterhouse is but the most recent of a long line of inquiries into child abuse allegations concerning both children in care and children living in their own homes. In the 1990s there were more than 20 child abuse inquiries; in the 1980s, more than 30; and in the 1970s, 17.
  Those figures do not include more broadly based inquiries. The report of the Warner inquiry into the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes, "Choosing with Care", was published in 1992. The report of an inquiry chaired by Lady Howe into the pay, conditions of service, training and qualifications of residential staff employed in homes and hostels—including those for children—run by local authorities, "Quality of Care", was published the same year. The report of a review of children's homes in Wales by the Welsh social services inspectorate, focusing on the quality of care and the provision of solutions to meet the needs of children in care in appropriate settings, "Accommodating Children", was published the same year.
  A wide-ranging review was undertaken by the social services inspectorate of the Department of Health, whose report, "Children in the Public Care", was published in 1991, hard on the heels of publication of the "Pindown Experience" report by Staffordshire county council. In 1987 Lady Wagner chaired an independent review of all residential care, commissioned by the then Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler); its report, entitled "Residential Care: A Positive Choice", was published by the National Institute for Social Work.
  The most recent such report of this 10-year period was the Utting report, "Children Like Us: the report of the review of the safeguards for children living away from home", published in July 1997.
  Let us hope that the fruits of these latest investigations will successfully ripen in the Care Standards Bill, the Children (Leaving Care) Bill and other Bills that, as this morning's debate has revealed, will address these concerns. Let us hope that they will all be enacted in this parliamentary year.
  In the meantime, what is happening to children in children's services out there in the real world? In England in the 1990s, the number of children looked after by local authorities fell by nearly 5,000—8.5 per cent. In Wales, it increased by 122—3.7 per cent. The number of children on child protection registers in England fell by 30 per cent., while in Wales it increased by 16 per cent. In England, 28 of every 10,000 children were on child protection registers last year, while in Wales 40 of every 10,000 were.
  In the last two years for which figures are available in Wales—1996–97 and 1997–98—the cost per child increased by 13.2 per cent., from £135,000 to £153,000. In the latter year, social services departments in Wales spent almost £103 million on children and their families.
  It is obvious from reports such as the Waterhouse report that, in far too many instances, that money has not been well spent. Waterhouse notes in paragraph 55.12 of the summary that, from the records available to him, of 127 of the 129 people who gave oral evidence, 52 had
  650
  convictions before they entered care, 85 were convicted of offences while they were in care and 85 had convictions after they had left care. There are undoubtedly huge savings to be made in the criminal justice system if we can provide positive, sympathetic and well-structured environments for looked-after children to recover for themselves the ordinary things of life, which most children enjoy without even realising it.
  Although, in one sense, the Waterhouse report is history and an investigation of events over 16 years, the most recent of which took place more than a decade past, the shadow of those years still blights the lives of hundreds of youngsters who are now men and women seeking to come to terms with their betrayal in care. Can we be confident that we will do better by the young people in care now? We are certainly more aware of the dangers that can face young people in care, dangers which in the 1970s and the 1980s we deemed to be so horrific, brutal and inhumane that, all too often, we could not bring ourselves to think that such sexual and physical abuse of young children in care was really possible. We know now that it is, and we can look around us and say that we are trying to make sure that such abuse does not happen again.
  By the time we came to power in May 1997, the previous Government had begun to tackle the problems in the care of looked-after children that had been revealed across the United Kingdom. We know, however, that that was not enough. Indeed, the Waterhouse report shows us that even the improvements that our own Government are making through the Care Standards Bill and the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, the additional funding through the quality protects programme and children first in Wales, and the commitments to have more qualified staff at all levels are not sufficient to provide the necessary safeguards for looked-after children and provide them with new hope, so that they do not feel, as Waterhouse puts it, "Lost in Care".
  There is no doubt that the spirit is willing. In our first year in government, I was fortunate to be, among many other things, the first Minister with responsibility for children in Wales. In the Welsh Office, in local government and in the voluntary sector, I found willing partners in the campaign to improve children's services, to have better co-ordination across government in Wales and to have a strengthened appreciation of the need to assess the impact of our policies and programmes for children in Wales.
  In September 1998, the Welsh Local Government Association published "Developing a Strategy for Children in Need in Wales: Local Government Role". I want to emphasise that it was a strategy for children in need, not in care. The association realised that the issue went beyond children in care. In many ways, the report foreshadows many of the recommendations in the Waterhouse report. The key areas identified in the report give a flavour of the wide-ranging nature of its work. It refers to children's service plans, looking at children in need including those with disabilities, children in public care, child protection, child care, leaving care and after care, youth justice and youth crime, staff training and development, educational issues, partnerships between the health service and local authorities and changes in the pattern of services.

  651
  That report was also set in the context of Government initiatives such as the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, on welfare to work and social exclusion, on building excellent schools together and on the health agenda as set out in the report "The Strategic Framework: Better Health, Better Wales". That report is an excellent blueprint for promoting public health strategies. It is, however, notable for its chapter on children and young people, which is about more than promoting their physical health. Its aim is to ensure that they reach their potential for achieving healthy and satisfying lives. The strategic framework focuses on a series of initiatives in the community—in schools and colleges—that will raise all aspects of services and enable children and young people to look forward confidently to opportunities for achieving healthy and satisfying lives.
  I believe that, despite the rough ride that the National Assembly has had in the early months since its birth, it has the potential for developing an all-embracing, co-ordinated approach to services for children, bearing in mind particularly the duties placed on the Assembly to strengthen the role of local government and the voluntary sector in policy making and providing services. It is not for me to predict how the Assembly will rise to that exciting challenge, but I believe that it has the opportunity to concentrate more deeply on the needs of children and the services provided both to protect their rights and to enhance the quality of their lives.
  Waterhouse was right to have as his first recommendation a children's commissioner in Wales. He said that the post should be established by statute and that it should be accountable to the whole Assembly and not just to a particular Secretary in it. That is rather like the Public Accounts Committee, which reports to the House and not to a particular Minister. Parliament should create similar offices in England and Northern Ireland.
  We have already had an exchange on whether it is a commissioner for children in Wales or a commissioner for children in care in Wales. Waterhouse does not, in his list of recommendations, make any distinction. He says that an independent children's commissioner should be appointed and he lists some of the post's duties. It is misplaced to put the recommendation simply in the context of the report itself, which is about looked-after children.
  Although the vast majority of Waterhouse's recommendations are about dealing with looked-after children, he does from time to time consider wider issues. In recommendation (62) he suggests:
  An Advisory Council for Children's Services in Wales comprised of members covering a wide range of expertise in children's services, including practice, research, management and training, should be established in order to strengthen the provision of children's services in Wales and to ensure that they are accorded the priority that they deserve.
  Those are not services for children in care, but for all children. We should take the spirit of the Waterhouse recommendation for a children's commissioner in Wales to mean a commissioner who is involved with all children.
  The commissioner or his office—one person could not do the job—should monitor and assess the policies and practice of all Government Departments in respect of the delivery of services to children. He or she—or the office—should ensure the development of policies and services designed to promote the welfare of children and young people. The office should undertake and promote
  652
  research into any matter relating to the welfare of children and young people. It should be able to inquire generally into, and report on, any matter, including any enactment of the law or any practice or procedure relating to the welfare of children and young people. It should receive and invite representations from members of the public on any matter relating to the welfare of children and young people and it should increase public awareness of matters relating to their welfare.
  It is obvious that, for too long, we have buried the issue deep in our psyche. I think that I am relatively sensitive to these matters, but the issue was brought home to me when I watched the BBC's adaptation of "David Copperfield" over Christmas. I do not know why, but it struck me forcefully that the abuse of children seems deeply endemic in our psyche. Although we have moved on from those days, to see total brutality as a matter of everyday life was something that hit me much more than reading that novel or the many others that describe such brutality.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is making a speech not only from the head but from the heart, and I fully appreciate the sincerity with which he is addressing the House. However, does he accept that some people think that having a commissioner for all children, rather than for children in care, would cause problems because it might usurp the normal rights of the majority of responsible mothers and fathers? Although I would be happy to accept a children's rights officer with jurisdiction also over children on the at-risk register, I would not be prepared to support a commissioner for all children.
  Mr. Griffiths: I could understand the hon. Gentleman's concern if the policy were being introduced in a one-party, totalitarian state, but we have to remember that many countries, including Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Peru, have a commissioner for children. I would seek to make sure that the commissioner's statutory powers were focused on the policies of the Government and the public sector to promote the welfare of children and young people. That could be the subject of an important debate in the consideration of any legislation that is introduced.
  Mr. Evans: I agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying. He talked about his perception of Dickensian days and said that abuse of children is deep in the psyche. Does he share my concern about some of the refugees who come to this country taking children and babies begging with them? I make no party political point whatsoever in raising this issue. Does he deplore that practice and agree that urgent action should be taken to ensure that it is not allowed to continue?
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is taking me beyond the subject of this debate, but I agree that the issue is important and needs to be dealt with properly.
  The office of the children's commissioner should also advise the Secretary for Education and Children in Wales on any matter relating to the administration of the law for children and young people, and it should keep under review and make recommendations on the working of that law. It should investigate and monitor the effectiveness of services for children provided by the public and voluntary

  653
  sectors, including the investigation of specific complaints. Last but not least, it should promote the full implementation of the convention on the rights of the child to guarantee the rights and welfare and children.
  The office will of course need to be properly funded to do its incredibly important job. Critical in that regard will be the implementation of the recommendations made by Waterhouse on strategic issues, including a national review of children's services and a proper assessment of the financial resources needed to ensure appropriate staffing to support and monitor the provision of those services in Wales.
  There is no doubt that despite the warm welcome given to the improvements made by our Government, fears have been expressed by voluntary sector organisations such as Voices, Children in Wales, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and many others that some of the existing weaknesses will remain to endanger the efficacy of the new framework being developed to protect and enhance the lives of children in need in Wales.
  Sufficient funding is needed to establish a truly independent advocacy service for youngsters, as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) pointed out in an intervention. Without clear independence of action and standing, there will always be the danger that youngsters' confidence that their complaints and concerns will be listened to will disappear, and the culture of hopelessness about ever getting complaints treated seriously, which blighted social services in Gwynedd and Clwyd, will enable abuse to start again and remain hidden.
  Funding is also critical for the delivery of effective education services for children in care. The record of provision so far is appalling, with some 75 per cent. of these children leaving school with no qualifications whatsoever. It is good to hear of the Government's commitment to increasing the age up to which local authorities will have a duty to provide education and training for care leavers, rather than relying on their discretion, which has been discredited and has failed children since 1948.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman talks about the Government changing arrangements so that local authorities will have a duty to provide educational support, but my understanding is that the Children (Leaving Care) Bill merely permits local authorities to provide that support. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that unless local authorities have a duty, we will not achieve more than the Children Act 1989 did?
  Mr. Griffiths: There is absolutely no doubt about that. I understood from exchanges in the other place that there will be a change. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that point, because we know that discretion has been discredited and has not worked.
  Extra funding, with the dissemination of best practice in positive corporate parenting, will immensely improve the chances of children leaving care then leading fulfilled and happy lives.
  The review of children's services and funding will provide the opportunity to ensure that properly developed and monitored services, including fostering, for children on the at-risk register, will not become a disaster zone for social services' credibility.
  654
  There have recently been two well-publicised cases of children at risk in Caerphilly in south Wales, and in Brighton three children died between 1994 and 1997. Those are horrific and tragic examples of the need to raise funding issues. One point that is made in the Waterhouse report and which can been seen from the way in which high-profile tragedies are dealt with is that social services workers are totally overstretched. They do not therefore make the best judgments when faced with difficult situations. Waterhouse records that one social worker had responsibility for about 60 children in care, so it was impossible to cope.
  On a slightly different issue, Waterhouse records also that in the care homes in north Wales were children from Tower Hamlets, Derbyshire and Newcastle, who had almost been abandoned there without any monitoring. One of the significant factors must have been a failure to provide the money for such monitoring.
  Many social workers are undoubtedly overstretched. We need an in-depth review of funding. There are also issues around training: it is clear that lack of training was important in many, although not all, instances. At homes mentioned in the Waterhouse report, there was good care despite lack of training. That was one beacon of light in a sea of darkness. We also need money to help oil the wheels of co-operation between Departments and different parts of government which have responsibility for children.
  If the Waterhouse recommendations are implemented in full and properly funded, I have every confidence in services for children leaving behind the dark terrors in Clwyd and Gwynedd expressed in the report, offering new hope to children who previously have been, tragically, "Lost in Care".
  11.40 am
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I very much welcome this debate. It follows one on the Waterhouse report in the National Assembly for Wales on Wednesday. Conducting the two debates so close together is timely.
  We are dealing with what has been a tragedy for children in care in Clywd and Gwynedd and, indeed, other areas. My constituency is in Gwynedd, although the main location of concern in the report, "Ty'r Felin", is in Bangor, which is outside my constituency. Clearly, however, I have great constituency involvement in the issue, of which I have been aware over many years.
  When I was a young Member of Parliament, many such areas were unknown to me. It has been part of my personal education to learn about them as the sad episode has developed. There is room for all of us in public life, as Members of Parliament, Assembly Members or local authority councillors, to maximise our education in order to understand matters in which we would not normally be involved.
  There has, of course, been a change in local government, and there are now six new counties in north Wales that cover the areas previously under the jurisdiction of Clywd and Gwynedd. I know that the officers and members of those new authorities are acutely aware of the lessons that have to be learned from this sad saga and that there have already been many changes in order that that might be so. Those who work with such young people need our support and help in their very difficult work. It is from that direction that we should

  655
  approach the Waterhouse report. Many more steps need to be taken, and urgently. We should dwell a little in this debate on the need for such urgency.
  I noted that, in opening the debate, the Minister said that we would have to wait until the summer for the Government's response to the Waterhouse report. We understand that there must be in-depth consideration, because the issues are very important, but I hope that there will be no undue delay. We have already been waiting far too long for action.
  I welcome the establishment of a statutory children's commissioner for Wales. Several bodies and individuals in Wales have called for such a post for many years. As a party, Plaid Cymru has called for it for the best part of 10 years, as I know have other parties and many in the voluntary sector. The role of the commissioner should not be restricted just to children in care. I follow the points made by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and others in this debate. I do not accept that the Waterhouse proposals implied that the children's commissioner should deal only with children who are being looked after. That is obviously the report's remit, but it must be read in a wider context.
  Indeed, the Government of Wales in Cardiff have not taken such a narrow approach. In the debate in the National Assembly on Wednesday, the Minister responsible, Jane Hutt, said:
  The Assembly has shown in its commitment to setting up an independent children's commissioner that it is willing to listen to children and young people. The Assembly will establish an independent children's commissioner for Wales. An amendment to the Care Standards Bill currently going through Parliament will enable us to meet the first two recommendations of the Waterhouse report, but we fully recognise the need to establish an office with a wider remit to promote the interests of children in Wales.
  That is the policy of the Government in Cardiff. I very much hope that the Government in London will facilitate the statutory underpinning necessary to grant the children's commissioner in Wales the full powers that he or she will need in order to undertake responsibility in that wider setting.
  I would be grateful if the Minister gave an assurance in his winding-up speech that the Government's attitude towards such powers will not be restrictive, but will allow the National Assembly to determine a broader role, if it so wishes. Certainly, bodies such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children do not want a narrow interpretation of the commissioner's role.
  We must, of course, look further than just the plight of those in formal care, as stated in paragraph 55.14 on page 212 of the summary of the report, which is well worth quoting again. I quoted it in part earlier. It in no way undervalues the very serious problem at Bryn Estyn. It states:
  Despite what we have said, however, a significant number of children regarded life in care, even at Bryn Estyn, as distinctly better than life at home and did not want to return to their family of origin. They were fed and clothed regularly and preferred a more predictable life to the unstable and sometimes dangerous one that they had known.
  That surely underlines the need for the remit of the children's commissioner to go beyond those who are in formal care.
  Ms Shipley: Earlier in the debate, I raised the issue of violence in the home. I should clarify that I am talking not about smacking, but kicking, punching, the stubbing out of cigarettes on children, very serious assault and a range of neglect, which the right hon. Gentleman has pinpointed. Does he agree that if, as a result of the Waterhouse report, good practice is developed in Wales, it should be a matter of political leadership that it is very quickly transferred to other parts of the country?
  Mr. Wigley: Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady on both points. On her second point, we in Wales have clearly closely adhered to a fairly radical and progressive social agenda over many years and in different political contexts. If we can make progress that can be implemented and learned from in other parts of the United Kingdom, all the better. We are looking for the power and the right to be able to make progress in Wales in line with the wishes of the National Assembly, and to do so as quickly as possible.
  The hon. Lady's first point is fundamental to the entire question. It would be far better if we could avoid the need for children to go into care by ensuring that they are looked after properly. That means being sensitive to the problems that they might be suffering in their homes and communities. If we can respond sufficiently rapidly, it might be possible sometimes to head off the trouble before it becomes too bad. There may be a need for foster homes in some instances, but there should not be an artificial barrier restricting the work of the children's commissioner. That view is widely shared in Wales.
  All such points touch on the question of how much wider the problems go. I have the distinct feeling that the report touches only the very tip of a huge iceberg. The report implies that problems, particularly in the formal care sector in Clwyd and Gwynedd, may extend to other geographic areas—reference has been made by hon. Members to that—and that the breakdown of the care system, or even an absence of appropriate systems, may be endemic throughout these islands.
  The issue of treatment of children within their own homes may require in-depth consideration. Although I took the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on the extent to which the state should interfere in families, I am sure that not only he and I but all hon. Members believe that children's welfare must be the paramount consideration. Although we must not interfere more than necessary, when it is necessary to do so, we have to take responsibility to ensure that well-being. The children at-risk register is one example of how we take such responsibility.
  I hope that Ministers, in responding to the report, will address the issues that it raises in a much wider context, not only geographically but in terms of the responsibilities that we as a community have towards our children.
  The report highlights three or four key issues that must be addressed if we are to improve standards. The first is the training of the staff who look after children and young people. Recommendations 25 to 30 address that issue.
  The pay and quality of staff is another issue, and addressing it is a basic requirement if we are to improve our standards. We have to make progress on appointing a children's complaints officer in each authority. We also have to address the issue of staff management tiers, and of appointing a specified social worker for each child in care.

  657
  We also need a statutory independent advocacy service, which was mentioned earlier in the debate. On that, I received a very moving letter from the mother of a young boy, who is autistic. She wrote:
  What about the children who can't talk or communicate at all? My son is eight and autistic. He would be unable to get help if anyone was to hurt him.
  We need that advocacy service if we are to ensure that the system we are developing provides safeguards to the most vulnerable children.
  We need resources to address those issues. The Minister mentioned the sum of £370 million, but I seriously doubt whether that will be enough. We have to ensure that sufficient resources are made available, in England and, in Wales, to the National Assembly. We also have to ensure that the money provided to Wales is in addition to the Barnett block grant, as that is currently defined. The Waterhouse report specifically, in paragraph 69, highlights the need to provide adequate resources in Wales, at a national level, for those purposes.
  Paragraph 64 of the report calls for a general review of the needs and costs of children's services, with a comprehensive and costed strategy. Waterhouse puts foursquare to the Government the need for more resources to safeguard our children.
  Earlier, I mentioned the responsibility of elected representatives. As company directors are aware of their legal responsibilities towards those whose interests they safeguard, we have to- ensure that elected representatives are aware of their responsibilities. In some ways, members of local authorities and hon. Members have even more serious responsibilities. We have to ensure that we are all not only aware of every aspect of those responsibilities, but fulfil them.
  Recommendations 71 and 72 are the final recommendations in the report, and call for the Law Commission to ensure that the legal issues arising from the fillings report—which was not published because of the pressure put on Clwyd council by the insurers—are addressed. Had that report been fully and promptly published, action might have been taken much sooner, thereby avoiding some of the difficulties.
  On Wednesday, my colleague Gareth Jones, Assembly Member for Conwy, spoke very strongly on that matter. He was speaking from his own experience, both as a former headmaster of John Bright's comprehensive school in Llandudno, and as a local county councillor. He highlighted the failure to implement the lessons of previous inquiries—Cartrefle, Jillings and Cleveland. He called for implementation of Sir Alan Marre' s report, back in 1978, entitled "Ad Hoc Inquiries in Local Government". That report is quoted on page 486 of the Waterhouse report.
  The Mane report suggested changes in law, to enable local authorities to establish formal inquiries—a point that Waterhouse also emphasised very strongly, on page 485. I hope that Ministers will urgently ask the Law Commission to consider the Waterhouse recommendations on that matter.
  My conclusions flow directly from the Waterhouse report's recommendations. We have had a string of previous reports. Some of them have been published, but
  658
  some have not. Sometimes, the recommendations in the published reports have not been implemented. Waterhouse must not fall into that category. We owe it to all the children whose lives have been blighted, to the staff whom we ask to work with those children on our behalf, and to our communities to implement Waterhouse not only in full, but promptly. We also have to ensure that the resources are available to do exactly that.
  11.55 am
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that, as a north Wales Member, I should like to focus on the Waterhouse inquiry. I should also like to introduce a slight note of discord into the debate. Although the Waterhouse report makes some very good recommendations, which I shall deal with later, I know that at least some of the victims feel let down by it. I am disappointed in some of its conclusions.
  My involvement in the issue dates from about 1989, when a victim came to a surgery that I was holding in my then constituency. He was not a constituent of mine, and the abuse did not occur in one of the homes in my constituency, although events of that nature occurred in some of the homes in my constituency. I thought that the best plan would be to pass him on to the then chair of Clwyd county council social services, Mr. Malcolm King—who deserves an accolade for the efforts that he made to discover the problems that were occurring.
  I was a Clwyd county councillor, from 1981 to 1989, although, from 1987 onwards, I was also a Member of Parliament and did not participate much in the county council's proceedings. However, at that time, there was no whisper at all of any problem—at least not to those of us who were in opposition on the council. It was only later, after the Labour party took control of the council, in 1989, that the matter started to be examined. I give Councillor King credit for that.
  As we have heard, Councillor King' s efforts resulted, ultimately, in an internal inquiry, which has come to be called the Jillings report. John Jillings, at the request of county councillors, produced the report. As we have also heard, that report was effectively suppressed by the insurance company. The council's insurers refused to allow it to be published.
  Although Waterhouse recommended that that should be looked at, he said that it was not illegal. It is appalling for councils to be punished financially for acting in the interests of children. It would be astonishing if we allowed that to go on. The Government must ensure that it cannot happen again. If the Jillings report had been allowed to be published, we would have been able to investigate the issues a lot earlier, and I am sure that some of the victims who committed suicide after that would still be alive.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is not the first hon. Member to mention that the Jillings report was not published because the council was apparently refused the opportunity or right to publish it. Under what law can an insurance company prevent a publicly elected body such as Clwyd county council from publishing a report on such a critical matter? That is an issue of deep concern.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I note that, like me, he is concerned about the situation. As I understand it, the council was not prevented by law from publishing, but had the report been published, the insurers were legally entitled to withdraw their insurance. That would have meant that the individual councillors who acquiesced in the publication of the report, in the best interests of their charges in care, would have been personally liable for any legal action resulting from publication. They would have lost their houses. That is an appalling situation and an understandable, if deplorable, incentive not to publish the report.
  In 1996, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—now the First Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and I met the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). We threatened—if that is the word—to read edited highlights of a leaked copy of the Jillings report under parliamentary privilege. A week later the Government agreed to hold the public inquiry that we are now discussing. I hope that we had some hand in that, but I give credit to the Government of the time for agreeing to hold an inquiry.
  The report makes gruelling reading and shows some interesting gaps in the care of children in Clwyd and Gwynedd: a culture of disregard for children seemed to be endemic in the system. It should have drawn a line under the sorry saga of child abuse in homes in Clwyd and Gwynedd and at least begun the healing process for the victims who were affected.
  Some of the conclusions are good and all the recommendations are excellent, but sadly the report does not draw a line under the problems or satisfy the victims that they have been listened to. Why is that? I believe that it is because it was a public inquiry that was not public. The evidence was read out in front of the tribunal and victims went through the gruelling experience—not for the first time in some cases—of giving evidence about horrendous things that were done to them and their friends. Perhaps I am naive, but I thought that the point of a public inquiry was that all the evidence was published and that the duty of the tribunal was to analyse that evidence and say what had happened and how those children and young people would be treated and listened to. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
  I understand that the naming of people who may be innocent is difficult. It is right that the victims were not named, but I do not understand how the public interest is properly served by not naming the potential abusers. The inquiry could exonerate those who were maliciously accused or for some reason mistaken by the children. We are talking about events that took place up to 20 years before. It is difficult, but I do not understand why all the accused were not named. That feeds the idea that there has been a cover-up. I have not established whether there is any evidence to support that belief, but unfortunately the refusal to allow the reporting of names leads to such accusations. That is a huge problem for the service of the public interest.
  The belief that there might have been a cover-up stems partly from the fact that it is an open secret in the press and among those who were involved in the inquiry that many high-profile people have been named by the victims. I do not intend to name any of them at the moment, but I shall mention the categories. They include current and former Members of Parliament, senior
  660
  members of the judiciary, members of the police force, including senior officers, and prominent business men. It was almost certainly a difficult judgment to make, but I do not accept that it is not possible to name these abusers.
  Ms Shipley: I support what my hon. Friend is saying. It is important that these people are known. There is a facility to put people who are abusers or are very likely to have been abusers on the consultancy index. The Protection of Children Act included that important provision, but it also provided a balance by, for the first time, allowing an independent right of appeal. As there is such a right of appeal, the naming of such people appears to strike the right balance in these serious cases.
  Mr. Jones: I absolutely agree. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention as it adds weight to the point that I am trying to make.
  The problem with the decision not to allow the public naming of people accused of abuse is that it makes it easier to avoid the hard work of following up less high-profile, but potentially dangerous people. The feeling that there has been a cover-up is encouraged by the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service was excluded from the inquiry. Why on earth was it excluded? I do not understand, and nor does the CPS.
  I have been given a list of 45 people—excluding the categories that I have mentioned—who may or may not be abusers. We have no way of knowing for sure because of the way in which the report has been drafted. I have been making inquiries and I have received helpful responses from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and from the police. I hope to be able to exonerate some of the people on the list as it would be nice to know that some of them are not potential abusers. It is a mammoth task and one that I should not have to do. The inquiry should have decided who to name as a potential abuser and, whether or not the victims' allegations were correct, those people should have been investigated.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: A thought has occurred to me about what my hon. Friend said about the CPS being excluded from the inquiry. Can he tell me whether it is possible for the evidence collected by the inquiry to be given to the CPS, or to the police so that they can draw up a file for the CPS to follow up?
  Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has pre-empted me. He is absolutely right and I am pleased that we are obviously thinking along the same lines.
  Before I turn to that point, I should like to query why that line was taken by the inquiry. I have read the official reasons in paragraph 6 of the report, but I remain concerned. I find it inconceivable that Sir Ronald Waterhouse did not consult Derek Brushett, a senior social services inspector, about the inquiry, as Mr. Brushett was in good standing between 1988 and 1997. I know for a fact that when the idea was mooted in 1996, he strongly advised the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the former Member for Clwyd, North-West, Mr. Rod Richards, not to have a public inquiry. That is hardly surprising, as it now transpires that Mr. Derek Brushett is in jail for 14 years for sexual abuse of children. If he was involved in setting up the criteria for the inquiry, that puts yet another question mark over why the people were not named.

  661
  We have a huge body of evidence that could now be published, with the names. It is not unreasonable to ask for that. We could have a royal commission on the whole matter.
  Mr. Hanson: Let me assure my hon. Friend and the House that Mr. Derek Brushett was not involved in establishing the criteria for the inquiry.
  Mr. Jones: I understood that to be the case, but I have not yet had a reply to my written parliamentary question asking whether he attended any of the four meetings that were set up by Sir Ronald Waterhouse.
  There are other areas of concern throughout the United Kingdom. The problem is not confined to north Wales, to children in care or even to children: other vulnerable people are being looked after by the state and local government. A royal commission on all such vulnerable people would be an appropriate way forward.
  The police—I use them as one example—set priorities for car theft, burglary and other crimes, and sexual offences and the abuse of children and vulnerable people are not very high on the list, but given the choice between a slightly lower risk of their car being stolen and a lower risk of their children being abused, I am pretty certain what most people's priority would be. A royal commission could take that on board.
  The National Assembly for Wales discussed this issue on Wednesday. I only managed to get a transcript of the debate about 10 minutes ago, and I have not quite got through it, but I approve of its conclusion that there should be more powers for a commissioner in Wales. I am sure that most hon. Members would support that. I hope that we will get a positive response from my hon. Friend the Minister.
  The evidence—naming names—should be published. That is the only way of getting the idea of a cover-up off the agenda. It is not acceptable to carry on pretending that because we have looked into the matter it is now all right. We have a 937-page report, with nearly half a million words, but unless people outside—and especially the victims—can be sure that their evidence has been taken proper note of, we will not be able to draw a line under the matter and the healing process will not be able to start.
  12.14 pm
  Jackie Ballard: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House and the Minister, because after I have spoken I will have to leave for a long-standing engagement in Devon. I realise that that is a discourtesy and I am very sorry about it.
  Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), have referred to the Waterhouse report, but over the years there have been too many reports and too many investigations that have all identified actions that could be taken to safeguard our children further.
  The Utting report, referred to by the Minister, identified three key dangers to children. The first was paedophiles, who are often very credible people who find ways of getting access to vulnerable children. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has
  662
  produced an excellent booklet, advising parents on how to do as much as they can to protect their children from the attentions of paedophiles in the community. However, the NSPCC makes the point—which has been raised in the debate—that most child abuse happens within the family, and not with strangers.
  The second key danger that Utting mentioned was adults and children who harm other children, either emotionally or sexually. The third danger—and the focus of much of today's debate—was failing organisation, where human error, incompetence or even indifference cause damage to children.
  As we know from the Waterhouse report, institutionalised incompetence or indifference allows misconduct to flourish and fails to promote the welfare of children. We all want to believe that the abuse that happened 10, 20 or more years ago could not happen now. However, it is clear that, in many care settings, better strategies are still needed to drive up standards.
  Mr. Ruane: The hon. Lady states that there have been too many inquiries in the past, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has said that there were 17 inquiries into child abuse in the 1970s, 30 in the 1980s and 20 in the 1990s. Does she think that there should be an inquiry into those inquiries to find out why the recommendations were not implemented?
  Jackie Ballard: As part of the Government's programme for the protection of children, it would be useful to have a compendium of all past recommendations to see where we have failed to deliver those which could have been useful. I am sure that that would be a long process.
  Many actions are still needed in many care settings to drive up standards. I would include in that increasing the status of child care workers. Too often, residential social work has been seen as a second-best career, and not a particularly well-paid one. It is important that we have clear and consistent qualification requirements and on-going accreditation schemes. Staff should be able to whistleblow, or to report colleagues or managers, without damaging their own careers.
  We have talked a lot about adults who have come forward in recent years to tell their stories of abuse when they were in residential care. We need a network of support and counselling for those adults. Just over a year ago, a constituent came to see me, alleging that he had been abused many years ago in a children's home in my constituency: a home which closed down a few years ago. Yet another inquiry—as part of a larger inquiry in Avon and Somerset—is going on into events at that home, and many people have come forward to say that they were abused in the home.
  Just yesterday, a woman phoned my office, and we could hardly understand what she was saying because of her tears, and her obvious distress and anguish. We desperately need support, counselling and help for people such as that. It is not enough to set up the mechanisms of inquiries; people need on-going support for something that they may have suppressed for many years. It is only now that, after reading that an inquiry is going on, they feel able to come forward to talk of their experiences.
  A number of hon. Members in the Chamber today served on the Committee scrutinising the Protection of Children Bill, as it then was. As has been said, there was

  663
  widespread party consensus on most of the issues. Yesterday, the Government published new proposals in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill that will place a statutory ban on people working with children in any setting if they have committed a serious offence against a child. There will be criminal sanctions if they break that ban. The measure should have widespread support in the House.
  The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) asked Conservative Members whether they supported the measure. That is a difficult question to answer, because it is encompassed in a wide-ranging Bill that includes a lot of other things that Opposition Members might not be able to support easily. However, I certainly support the measures in the Bill dealing with the protection of children. I believe that they will further strengthen the safeguards for children.
  I especially welcome the widening of the definition of working with children to include voluntary settings. I am pleased, too, that it will be an offence for a disqualified person to seek to work with children. That was an issue that was raised during proceedings on the Protection of Children Act 1999, to try to minimise the risk of unsuitable people seeking work in less regulated sectors of child care. However, those provisions will apply only to people who have been convicted of harming a child and, for civil liberties reasons, I would not argue for extending the ban to non-convicted persons on suspicion only. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge knows, we had long discussions in the Committee on that Act about the civil liberties implications of preventing someone from working with children on the grounds of a reasonable suspicion that he or she might hurt them.
  Children also need trusted people to whom they can turn if they are not happy with what is going on in child care settings. As other hon. Members said, children's complaints should be supported by independent advocates. That is especially important for children who have less of a voice to make their case. The position of children would be markedly improved by the appointment of a children's rights commissioner, as other hon. Members have commented.
  The principal task of the commissioner would be to give advice and to keep under review the working of legislation affecting children. He or she would also have a key role in listening to children—not just looked-after children, but all children—and ensuring that their views were effectively represented to Government and other bodies. My party also strongly supports the campaign that has been launched by the NSPCC, Barnardos and others to that end. Waterhouse clearly recommended the establishment of a children's commissioner in Wales for all children. The creation of a children's rights director for England, as proposed by the Government, will safeguard only looked-after children. Many hon. Members hope that the Government will reconsider those proposals.
  Children are too often at risk in their own homes, whether from someone who is paid to care for them or from their parents or other relatives. Too often, children in families do not receive the support they need and the Government are to be commended for introducing home start. However, it needs to be more widely accessible if it is really to provide the sure and safe start in life we want for all our children and the support that their parents need. I have said before in the House that being a parent is one of the most difficult jobs in the world.
  664
  We also need to acknowledge, as the hon. Member for Stourbridge pointed out in an intervention, that thousands of children a year witness or are subject to domestic violence. In the early days of the women's aid movement, the focus was on the battered wife and her needs. We are now much more aware of the impact on children of witnessing an abusive relationship. Research shows that children who grow up seeing violence in their daily lives, let alone experiencing that violence directly, are more likely to become violent themselves. A damaged child can become a damaging adult. Much more needs to be done by the Government and by statutory services working with the voluntary sector to produce a properly co-ordinated and resourced strategy for dealing with both the perpetrators and the direct and indirect victims of domestic violence.
  The Government have taken some welcome initiatives in extending the statutory protection for children. However, there is still the question of people who have not been convicted of an offence against children and who are working in unregulated settings—as, for example, nannies in the child's home or as child minders. Child minders are registered and regulated, but at a local level only, not at a national level. We are all aware how cunning and credible child abusers can be and I believe that one more piece of the jigsaw is needed to minimise the chance of an abuser gaining access to children.
  I am the chair of the parliamentary campaign for the registration of workers with young people and children. That is not a very sexy title, but we have shortened it to CRY. The campaign is supported by Labour Members and includes the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), who was its chair before me. It is also supported by nanny agencies, the Chiltern and Norland colleges and the Professional Association of Nursery Nurses. Our key aim is to persuade the Government that there should be a national register of all those who work with children and young people. The Institute of Child Care and Social Education has prepared plans for the implementation of such a register. It would enable employers, whether public or private, corporate or individual, to check the background and see the information provided by an applicant, knowing that it had been independently checked out. A national register would prevent a person refused registration as a child minder, say, in one part of the country, from obtaining work in another area.
  It seems that many of the workers named in the Waterhouse report are missing. They could still be working with children—they have not been convicted, and they may even have changed their names and faked their employment histories. A register could not totally exclude the possibility of child abuse but, by including police checks, a requirement for a minimum standard of relevant qualifications and a complete work history, it could enable employers to make better informed decisions.
  Ms Shipley: I have had extensive discussions with the hon. Lady, and I recognise that she is making a very genuine proposal, but she will know that I have some reservations about it. She is proposing the establishment of a positive register, which will list those who are deemed to be good people to work with children. Such a register would be huge. There are many thousands working with children who are good people and who are

  665
  the right ones for that work. However, my experience of the Protection of Children Act 1999 is that the bad people who certainly should not work with children are devious liars and very cunning.
  I would be very wary of the positive register that the hon. Lady proposes, as it would be extremely difficult to ensure that all the people in it justified their positive identification. I am worried—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady is making an intervention, not a speech. If she wishes to make a speech, she must seek to catch my eye.
  Jackie Ballard: Fortunately, the hon. Lady and I have discussed these matters many times, so I can imagine what she was about to say. I agree that the register would be very large, given the many people working in residential and non-residential child care. The people who would be bad and harmful to children would, under the proposals in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill and in the Protection of Children Act 1999, be included in the register of non-approved people. However, that would not tell a parent employing a nanny, for example, whether the pleasant and plausible person coming for interview was who she said she was and had the qualifications that she claimed.
  A parent might be able to find out that such an applicant was not on a register of unapproved people, but I believe that a positive register would help give more information to people making the difficult decisions involved in employing a nanny. I and my campaign group would be happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Lady, as we would be very pleased to have her support.
  The Government intend to regulate nanny agencies, but only a small percentage of parents find nannies through agencies: 70 per cent. still use ads in magazines, or word of mouth. Only a national register will give parents better peace of mind.
  A national register would also help to raise the status of child care workers. One thing is certain: if we are to safeguard children, we must value unpaid, parental caring as well as paid carers. As I said, looking after a child can be the most difficult, frustrating and demanding job in the world. It should be valued much more by society.
  Life cannot be risk free, but we have a duty to do whatever we can to minimise the risks to children. The Government have made very welcome strides in putting together a network of regulation and legislation to safeguard children. I hope that they will be convinced to go just a few inches further—on a children's commissioner, and on a national register of child care workers.
  12.29 pm
  Mr. Chris Ruane: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I shall concentrate on Waterhouse's "Lost in Care" report. First, however, I should like to pay tribute to the work of Councillors Malcolm King and Dennis Parry from the Wrexham area, and of Alison Taylor, a social care worker in Gwynedd. For 10 years, they kept up the pressure to ensure that the Waterhouse report, and the Jillings report, came to fruition.
  666
  I know that "Lost in Care" will be different from all the other reports in the past—there have been 67, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said. This report's recommendations will be implemented. There are 72 recommendations—60 pertain to the Department of Health, which is acting urgently upon 43 of them and reviewing another 27. That shows how serious the Government are in implementing those recommendations.
  I am particularly pleased with the recommendation that those working with children should receive proper training and be required to gain proper qualifications to work in this difficult and demanding area. I hope that those who work in child care will receive adequate financial reward so that we attract people of the highest calibre.
  I am pleased that the consultancy list of people who are unsuitable to work with children will be put on a statutory basis. Some of those named in the report have already gone on to jobs working with children in other areas of the country. That is unacceptable.
  Another key recommendation—that children should have proper independent representation—will improve the lot of children in care. That, coupled with the local authorities' children complaints officer, will ensure that complaints are taken seriously. I was astounded to read of one ex-resident, who escaped from Bryn Estyn through his dormitory window. When he was caught by the police and told them that he was being abused, they did not believe him and took him back to the home the same night, where he was further abused. That is unacceptable.
  There are a number of aspects of the report with which I am not satisfied. I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones). I am not happy that some of the abusers were named in the report and others were not. In appendix 4, page 877, the tribunal sets out its reasons for anonymity. The tribunal
  received requests from virtually all the potential witnesses … that they should be granted anonymity in the proceedings.
  I agree that that should have been the case during the proceedings. Although it is entirely acceptable that those who have been abused have anonymity, I do not think that it should be given to people who have abused children and have admitted to doing so. For example, page 768 of the report refers to police officer Z, who was accused of indecently assaulting a 15-year-old boy on three occasions. He admitted the offence, and was given a written caution. That is unbelievable. It happened in 1993. He was let off lightly then, and I believe that he was also let off lightly in 2000, when the report was published, by not being named. Others were named in the report for carrying out physical abuse. Physical abuse is bad, and it is right that those people were named in the report, but the police officer committed sexual abuse, which I put on an equal footing, at least, with physical abuse. People accused of physical abuse were named in the report, while that police officer, who admitted sexual abuse, was not. I question that.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Is it not the case that people who accept a caution from the police, whether or not they are policemen, agree to accept the guilt of that offence? In other words, they are guilty.
  Mr. Ruane: That is right. The officer in question admitted his guilt. There was no wild accusation; it was

  667
  verified by the officer's admittance of guilt. I cannot understand why a person who has been found guilty should be named while a person who admits guilt should not. Will the Minister address that point?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South said that there is a feeling in north Wales that the investigation was not sufficiently transparent or public. He put it mildly. Because of the lack of names being made public, people in north Wales feel that there was a cover-up. Naming perpetrators would bring them great anxiety. They are probably sitting at home, terrified of being named. There have been press reports that my hon. Friend would name them today, and I am glad that he has not used parliamentary privilege to do so. If they are to be named, they should be named through the proper channels.
  Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend will be aware that chapter 6 of the Waterhouse report sets out the tribunal's policy on naming. For the record, the report states that the tribunal
  do not consider that the evidence against particular individuals has been such as to warrant naming them, bearing in mind the climate in which they were working.
  We have a duty to recognise what the tribunal has said.
  Mr. Ruane: I thank the Minister for that, but in the example that I have given, guilt was admitted. There are no two ways about it; the man was guilty, according to his own tongue. He should have been named. He got off leniently in 1993, and he has got off lightly again in the report.
  People guilty of child abuse who were not named in the report are worried—probably terrified—about being named. But I ask them to remember the terror that they engendered in the young people in their care. I have spoken with people who were in care at Bryn Estyn and other schools, including some lads from the council estate where I was brought up in the 1960s and 1970s. They were placed in the dormitories of those homes, and they have told me of their terror at hearing footsteps on the stairs in the middle of the night. They have told me of their panic when they heard the door opening and closing. They have told me of their revulsion when people in positions of trust abused that trust and tried to force themselves on the young people.
  Many of my friends from that tough council estate were tough lads, and they defended themselves. They have told me that if they did so, they were not bothered. The abusers were like water, flowing to the weakest point—abusing the most vulnerable young people. Those who abused young people in care in north Wales may be feeling anxious—even terrified—that they will be named, but I ask them to reflect on the terror that they caused.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: My hon. Friend mentioned reports that I would use parliamentary privilege to name people, and I can say only that they were greatly exaggerated. I had no intention of doing so, unless I felt certain that people had not been properly investigated by the police and that they were a danger to the public.
  Can my hon. Friend confirm that no one's interest will be served if many people who were innocent are scared? They have no need to be scared. An awful lot of people do very good work, and I commend them. I hope that they do not fear that they will be named.
  Mr. Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I share his view on that matter.
  668
  Another issue that relates to the report is the number of ex-residents who have taken their own life because of the abuse that they experienced in those homes in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. I put a battery of parliamentary questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, but, with respect, I was disappointed with the response. One of my questions was a request for a list of all the young people who had committed suicide as a result of their experiences as residents in those homes. I was told that the information was not held centrally. After the Jillings and "Lost in Care" inquiries, I should have thought that such information would have been kept centrally in the Welsh Office.
  The Secretary of State did not supply the information. I had to rely on a newspaper—the Daily Mail. I shall read the toll of young people who committed suicide because of their experience in those homes: Peter Wynne, who hanged himself in 1994, aged 27; Mark Humphreys, who killed himself, aged 30, and who was raped at least 50 times in Bryn Estyn; Simon Burley, who hanged himself from a tree aged 27, after being abused by Peter Howarth; Robert Arthur Smith, who committed suicide in 1978, aged 16, by taking an overdose of painkillers; Barry Williams, found dead in his flat aged 21; Brendon Randalls, who died aged 27, after drinking himself to death; Richard Williams, who was found dead in a car, aged 18; Heath Kelvin Jones, aged 18, found dead in a car from solvent abuse; and Robert Chapman, who fell to his death from a railway bridge.
  The last person I shall mention was one of my constituents, Craig Wilson. He committed suicide in 1994, aged 16. His case was examined in the Jillings report. Craig died six years ago, but the first that his parents knew about the abuse that he had suffered was when they read that report in the Daily Mail four weeks ago. That is unbelievable. We have had the Jillings report, the "Lost in Care" report and the coroner's report. Craig's suicide was trawled over by banisters, solicitors and other professionals, but his family were denied the right to know the circumstances of their child's death.
  I spoke to Craig's mother at 11 pm yesterday and shall read from the letter that I received from the family:
  Dear Chris
  Once again I have to ask for your help. Our son Craig died on 21st November 1994 while being accommodated by Clywd social services.
  For five years we tried in vain to find through police, coroner and legal professions what exactly happened. To no avail. My wife's legal aid was withdrawn.
  I opened the Daily Mail on the 16th February … to see our son was one of the twelve victims related to the abuse in Clwyd. We did not know!!! The Daily Mail have told us the source of their information is the Jillings report. We can't access the report, can you?
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister give me an assurance that the Wilson family in Prestatyn in my constituency will be given all the relevant information from the Jillings and "Lost in Care" reports, so that they know all the true circumstances behind their son's death. It is not much to ask. Any Member of the House would demand exactly the same if that had happened to their child.
  I have expressed my main concerns about the report. I am sorry to be negative, because many positive results will come from the report. The 72 recommendations will lead to better care for young people in children's homes. However, I repeat my two main concerns: that anonymity

  669
  is being given to certain people and not to others; and that the parents of Craig Wilson, my constituents, have been denied access to information that they should have been given years ago.
  12.45 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) has related to the House some horrific cases with which he has been intimately involved. I believe that we all listened with deep concern to what he said about his experiences and those of the families whom he is helping.
  The Minister, in concluding a lengthy but detailed and helpful speech, quoted Mrs. Jo Williams, director of social services for Cheshire, who, quite by chance, is also chairman of the Association of Directors of Social Services, who said:
  the age of innocence is past.
  Despite everything that I have heard this morning, I am still one of those who believe that Parliament and rational and reasonable people, especially parents, should seek to restore that age of innocence to young people. It is a crying shame that people can say that no longer can children have eight, 10, 11 or 12 years of happy innocence, because for many, that may well prove to be the happiest time of their life. I make no apology for saying that I hope that this place, in legislation and in example, will restore that age of innocence to young boys and young girls.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), who has told the House that, sadly, she cannot be here for the remainder of the debate for reasons that we well understand, said that the bringing up of a child was a difficult, demanding job—and, moreover, a full-time job. I make the plea, because it has not yet been made during this debate, for the Government, whether the present Government or a Government of my own party or of another, to recognise the role that a mother, particularly, undertakes in bringing up a child. That could be done through the tax system. We have never properly reflected the full-time job of a mother in bringing up a child. Admittedly, times have changed and fathers now play a greater role than they used to, but I still believe that the tax system should recognise the role of the mother for the highly responsible and important job that she undertakes.
  I make a plea to the present Government, and to my own party in drawing up an election manifesto, as it will in the next 12 months, properly to reflect in the tax system—perhaps by way of an allowance—the role of a woman in bringing up a child, the role of a mother. We should acknowledge the inadequacy of the way in which that role has been recognised.
  I shall endeavour to be brief. For many years I served on the Select Committee on Social Services and the Select Committee on Health and, before both those Committees, on the Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure. I knew Sir William Utting well. I endorse and actively promote the recommendations in his report, "People"—young people—"Like Us". I also endorse the recommendations of the Sir Ronald Waterhouse report, "Lost in Care", which has been the major source of all the matters discussed in today's debate.
  670
  I also wished to speak because an office of the firm of solicitors, Abney, Garsden and MacDonald, is located in the village of Poynton in my constituency. That firm is actively involved in the issues that the House is rightly debating. One of its partners is handling many of the cases that have resulted from child abuse.
  Cases have occurred not just in north Wales. In an intervention at the beginning of the Minister's speech, I drew attention to the fact that, although north Wales has featured prominently because of the Waterhouse report, matters relating to the abuse of children have occurred in other counties, including my own county of Cheshire, and Staffordshire, which has been mentioned in the debate.
  I have talked at length to the partner at Abney, Garsden and MacDonald about the experiences that he and his firm have had in dealing with such cases. I do not think that I am revealing a private conversation when I say that he told me that, for a period after his initial involvement, he was what I would describe as "traumatised" by the details of the horrors that had been revealed in the cases of child abuse. He has obviously got over that, but it clearly suggests that the House must do more about this issue. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) for what she has done, but much more action is necessary.
  When I was on the Social Services Committee, we held an inquiry into young people in care. During that inquiry, we took evidence from and met several young people who were involved with what was then known as the National Association of Young People in Care—NAYPIC. I greatly admired the courage of the young people whom we met and took evidence from. The representatives of young people in care told us that there were problems and, although many people in recent years have been against the existence of residential care, they also told us that there was a need for such care. As the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others have said, some young people believe that residential care provides them with a better quality and style of life than they would have received in their own homes.
  Despite all the criticism that has been made of residential care homes for children and young people, we should not condemn them all. A number of them have clearly done an excellent job. Many young people who are doing well in society today spent part of their youth in residential homes.
  I was in full-time business before I entered the House. I was involved in the construction industry when the midlands branch of the Contractors Mechanical Plant Engineers Association adopted the Pebble Mill children's home in Birmingham to give the children living there a better quality of life. We provided treats, entertainment and outings that they would not otherwise have had, so as to give them the best possible life. During the time of my involvement, I had every admiration for the house father and the house mother and many of the people who cared for the children. Many of the children were delightful and I was amazed that they were in local authority care because their parents were not able or did not want to look after them. That children's home provided a caring environment, and the house mother and house father did a wonderful job and had my full support. I therefore pay tribute to many of the people who spend their professional life looking after children in care.

  671
  I intervened a couple of times earlier on the subject of the children's rights commissioner. Although we need such a commissioner, his duties and responsibilities should mainly relate to children in care and, as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), to children on the at-risk register. The commissioner's overall responsibilities might be broader, although I am deeply concerned that he might usurp parents' normal and natural rights and responsibilities and have an undesirable effect. However, I fully understand the concern expressed by all hon. Members who have spoken.
  I speak on behalf of my party, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will understand that my party, like all others, takes the safety of children extremely seriously. What is more, my party is proud of the legislation that was enacted when it was in government. As the House will know, legislation was introduced in 1988 and 1991 to overcome the problem of children feeling too scared to give evidence in court. One solution introduced was the use of videos in court, which is now taken for granted. That was a desirable development which clearly enables children to be more open and to feel more relaxed when giving evidence in horrific cases such as those described to the House today.
  The Conservative Government also introduced the Children Act 1989. I played a part in that as a member of the then Select Committee on Social Services, which undertook an inquiry into the Bill. I pay particular tribute to a colleague who is no longer in the House, Roger Sims—latterly Sir Roger Sims—for his tremendous contribution to that inquiry. The Select Committees make a major contribution to the developments that the House wants to make.
  It is worth saying also that the Conservative Government introduced the Family Law Act 1996, which protected all those, including children, who were abused in their own home. It has been said, I think by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, that a great many child abuse cases occurred not in residential homes but in private homes, and that relations—and sadly, in some cases, even parents—were responsible for the abuse.
  In 1997 the Sex Offenders Act was passed, and required certain sex offenders to notify the police of their names and addresses and any subsequent changes in those details. It was also designed to enable UK courts to prosecute British citizens or residents who commit certain sexual acts abroad. That legislation was long overdue, and I am delighted that it was passed.
  This debate has been useful. With the exception of a few areas in which there is not total agreement, hon. Members are united on the need to seek the greater safety and protection of children.
  I want to return briefly to the Children Act. The then Social Services Committee made a major contribution in one other area. We considered the way in which Scotland dealt with cases relating to children, and we learned a lot. We discovered that the way in which matters were conducted in Scotland was much less confrontational and more informal. The changes subsequently taken on board in this House as a result of the Scottish experience were extremely beneficial.
  I return to where I began: children are very precious to us all. I speak as a parent of three grown-up children. My two sons have married and I have seven grandchildren
  672
  who—were it not for the fact that my constituents might be listening to the debate—I would say are the most important thing in the lives of my wife and me. We have a happy family. We want all children to share that experience and to have a happy and fulfilling life.
  1.1 pm
  Ms Debra Shipley: This debate is important. The Protection of Children Act 1999 introduced me to information which I wish I had never known. It churns my stomach, reduces me to tears and is more than I can cope with on some occasions. "People Like Us"—the Utting report—and the Waterhouse report have shown that we have clearly failed to protect children. They have been abused, attacked and neglected. For far too long, they have been left with nowhere to turn, their voices have not been heard and they have not been believed.
  I thank hon. Members who have mentioned the Protection of Children Act and its measures. I had the honour of taking the Bill through the House. As a result I learned exactly where there are gaps in legislation and how very much more needs to be done. As a Back Bencher, I was limited in the amount that I could do, which hugely upset and frustrated me.
  In the light of "Lost in Care", there have been many calls in the House and from children's charities for a commissioner for children, which I fully support. This debate has highlighted discussion of which areas the commissioner should cover. There is certainly consensus that care homes should be covered, but how much wider the remit should be is under discussion. There is compelling evidence of the need for a United Kingdom-wide commissioner. I certainly believe that the remit should reach beyond care homes for children.
  In responding to my intervention, my hon. Friend the Minister suggested that an English version of the commissioner would be similar and that the matter was one of title. I am not quibbling over matters of title; it is the content that is vital. We need a strong commissioner. I would welcome more thoughts on the matter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales in his winding-up speech. I should like to know whether he agrees, first, that a UK-wide commissioner, of whatever name, would be an important step in supporting and protecting children, and secondly, that confining a commissioner's role to care homes would be far too restrictive.
  I turn briefly to measures regarding leaving care, which have been raised. I welcome the measures in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. For far too long, children who have no family or parental support have been brought up in care homes and left with little or no support once they leave. It is up to the Government to do something about that. It is to their credit that they are tackling the issue, and I truly welcome the measures taken.
  Nevertheless, people working with these young people have told me that they have some concerns. Although they do an excellent job, the resources available to them are limited. They will require support, training and more resources to implement the important and correct innovations proposed in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. I hope that the Minister is able to offer some reassurances that they will receive that support.
  I cannot adequately express to the House how happy I am with some aspects of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. As I said, the Protection of Children Act

  673
  1999 has great limitations. However, some of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill's provisions will build on and greatly enhance the powers provided in the Act, to help stop those who are identified as unsuitable to work with children from moving with impunity from one type of employment to another. Such provision is vital.
  It is my understanding that the Bill will apply to those who work in a wide range of employment, including those working in education, health, social care, accommodation, leisure and sporting activities, religious activities and the criminal justice system.
  It is my understanding that the Bill will also provide for a ban on such people working with children regardless of the status of their employment, whether it is paid or unpaid, public or private, or—within the definition—in the voluntary or volunteering sectors. As I have said in the House on a number of occasions, inclusion in legislation of the voluntary and volunteering sector is extremely important. I tried to include it in the Protection of Children Act, but was not able to do so because sanctions could not be applied to it. We have to make such provision, and the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill will tackle the issue. I hugely welcome the Bill, as it will, for the first time, provide an integrated system to cover those who work with children.
  However, I am not sure that the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill will make it a statutory requirement to vet employees in all the spheres that I have just mentioned. In the Protection of Children Act, in certain circumstances, vetting of volunteers is permissible, but it is not a statutory requirement. It is vital that vetting in all those spheres be made a statutory requirement, and I should be very pleased if my hon. Friend the Minister clarified whether the Bill will make it a requirement.
  I raised the issue of domestic violence in an earlier intervention, but it is worth raising again. The sad truth is that many children end up in care because of family breakdowns and violence in the family. For too long, the issue of violence in the home has been hidden. Now it is being revealed as a very widespread phenomenon. I welcome the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children's full stop campaign.
  I also welcome the Daphne project, which, under the auspices of various organisations—including my union, the GMB—is being piloted in the west midlands. It will make violence in the home a workplace issue. I had the honour of launching the pilot scheme, which will train managers and union convenors to recognise the signs of violence in the home and offer help and advice in the workplace. It is a huge step forward that a very large trade union, such as the GMB, and some important businesses in the west midlands have agreed to pilot the scheme, and I thank them for doing so.
  I anticipate that the scheme will be a success, as there is much good will behind it. A similar pilot is being conducted in Spain. Should the initiative prove successful, it will be launched Europe wide.
  I am proud that we have a Government who are putting children at the heart of their decision making. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's endeavours substantially to reduce child poverty, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's sincere pledge to work for
  674
  children. That commitment by the Government is not only enormously important, but hugely complicated. From my experience with the Protection of Children Act, I know that a great deal of interdepartmental co-operation is required to implement such a commitment, and that, even with good will, the job can be immensely difficult.
  I should like to tell the House a small anecdote about the Protection of Children Act, to illustrate my point. All the time I was battling for more. Three Departments were primarily concerned with the Bill—the Department of Health, which had the lead responsibility, the Department for Education and Employment and the Home Office. Several other Departments also had significant input. I had large meetings and was frequently told, "Ms Shipley, you can't do that." I said, "Why? This is very important." On occasions I needed to get three Secretaries of State to agree something before it could happen. Perhaps that is right. That interdepartmental co-operation—
  Mr. Win Griffiths: What my hon. Friend is saying is interesting. I think that there may be up to 10 Departments involved in some matters relating to children. In Wales we decided to have a Minister for children. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has given any thought to that for England.
  Ms Shipley: How right my hon. Friend is. He anticipates the direction of my thoughts. The arcane structures of the House worked in my favour, because during a Division I was able to find three Secretaries of State in the Lobby with me. I could rush up to each of them, grab their elbow and say, "Look, this is really important."
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton:Very important.
  Ms Shipley: I hear supportive words from Conservative Members. Excellent though that facility was on that occasion, it is surely wrong that chance should play a part in such an important aspect of legislation.
  There is a need for one person to be responsible for children's issues and to co-ordinate all the varying and very tangled strands relating to children. I received great good will on my Bill from all the Departments involved, but even so it was difficult to bring about the measures that everybody wanted. That is not good enough. The time has come for a Minister for children at least. I have given the matter a good deal of consideration and I believe that it is time for an entire Department for children, because they are a huge and very important topic. Every time we take a little step in the right direction, we find that there is a huge amount more to be done. There is currently nobody responsible for pulling together those strands. Without someone, we shall carry on failing our children.
  1.13 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who, for 17 years, did excellent work on Select Committees on topics such as this. He had two excellent years as the Chairman of the Health Committee before he was the victim of a putsch, which was one of the most short-sighted deeds of the previous Parliament.

  675
  My hon. Friend always says things as he sees them, and if we had more Members of Parliament like him people would have more respect for the House.
  I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) for the Protection of Children Act 1999, which she piloted through the House. It is an excellent Act, but very technical and complex and it will be difficult to get it fully operational. The hon. Lady acknowledges that there are one or two holes in it. We may have to revisit the issue. However, it is one of her major achievements in this Parliament.
  The fact that she happened to be in the Division Lobby and was able to grab two or three Ministers is a good thing. The way in which we vote is excellent, because it enables Back Benchers to talk to Ministers, even for only a minute or two, to mention their concerns. No electronic system could substitute for that. I know that people sometimes regret the current system on hot, sweaty evenings, but it is a good system.
  I serve on the Health Committee. One of the most harrowing investigations that we have done in this Parliament was on child migrants. This country had a history of sending young children to the colonies. In the 1950s and 1960s—I think until 1972—we sent young people to Australia.
  The Select Committee went to Australia to talk to people who had come from children's homes in Liverpool, Bristol and Coventry and had ended up in children's homes in the outback, 500 miles from Perth. Many of them had suffered abuse. On meeting those people, who are now in their 50s and 60s, we were struck by the collateral damage that they had suffered. Many of them had experienced divorce, prison or mental hospital and all sorts of other personal problems which stemmed from their dreadful upbringing and the abuse that they had undergone. Many speeches today have referred to the consequences of abuse, which can be a ticking time bomb for many years afterwards.
  Safeguarding children is extremely important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, perhaps the House does not spend enough time on it and today's debate is welcome. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that the best place for children is in a traditional loving family. Our job is to look after those who unfortunately do not have that advantage.
  I should like to touch on a few points. We are all aware that we are not doing as well as we would like in respect of adoption. It can take five years for a child over five to find a family. That is far too long. We have to redouble our efforts to place children. Many people would like to adopt. I know that sufficient checks have to be made, but bureaucracy sometimes gets in the way of children finding loving homes.
  The unsung heroes of children are the 32,000 foster carers in Britain. We all know many people in our constituencies who foster children for precious little reward. They sometimes have concerns and difficulties with children who may have been damaged, yet they continue to care, and do so good humouredly. They and their families put a great deal into supporting those children. We have to consider whether the rewards are adequate. Some local authorities do not reward foster carers as well as private agencies do and people are
  676
  tempted to come off the local authority list. That is wrong because foster carers are a tremendous resource that we should value.
  The Health Committee also considered looked-after children and the relationship between local authorities and children. That inquiry took place at about the same time as the William Utting report "People Like Us". Many of us were shocked by the way in which the system operated and the fact that children have to leave children's homes at 16, which is very early. Children living at home with their parents usually decide when they want to leave. Quite often it is when they are beyond their teens, but they still have their bedrooms at home. Sometimes even when one gets married one can go back to one's parents, look at the toys in the cupboard and feel that there is a refuge.
  For many 16-year-olds who have only ever lived in a children's home, the moment they go out the door their posters come down and their bed is allocated to someone else. In many cases they are discouraged from returning to the home. It is considered that the job has been done and they have to leave. In 1993, 33 per cent. of 16-year-olds had left care. The figure has now gone up to 46 per cent., and 75 per cent. of them leave homes with no educational qualifications. We should be greatly concerned by that.
  The Children (Leaving Care) Bill is a good Bill that deserves all our support. It is very much in line with the proposals of the Health Committee to encourage children to stay at home until they are 18. We were hoping for 21, but it is a good start. Pathway plans for young people up to 21 covering education, training and careers and providing support is also a good idea. Young person advisers are also a step in the right direction. We found that many young people need advice and someone to act as an advocate. That is a good way forward. The points in the Bill about vocational support—at university, for instance—education and training are very good.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend mentioned advocacy. Does he share my view that there should be a clear advocate for children—I do not go so far as to ask for a Ministry for children—within Government, on any legislative matter that directly affects them?
  Mr. Syms: We should consider that point seriously, but more often the problem for a child in a home is finding someone to talk to who is not part of the institution. In the Health Committee, we heard about children being able to talk to the gardeners, for example. They need someone to talk their life out with, as most children do routinely with their own parents.
  The Bill is a step in the right direction. If we get it wrong with these children and fail to give them more educational qualifications and offer them better guidance, society as a whole will pay the price not only in terms of crime but financially for the taxpayer. Sometimes we seem to be penny wise and pound foolish when it comes to looking after our young people. We are all aware of the importance of ensuring that they have the best possible start in life.
  There is much consensus, although that does not stop Opposition Members asking hard questions. We are making a lot of progress. I have been pleased to contribute today, and I have learned a great deal.
  1.21 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: I, too, welcome this debate, which gives us an opportunity to raise issues about the welfare and protection of children. In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Minister of State touched on a wide range of issues. He was right to point out the commitment that the Government have shown on this very important matter.
  Many interrelated factors affect children and young people, including where the family lives, what the environment is like, whether the father or mother is working, what the education system is like, whether the child goes to school and whether there is crime in the area. The evidence shows that if, sadly, the family is living in what is now known as social exclusion, that family will find life very hard indeed and the youngsters will often be deeply affected. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have that high on his list of commitments in his Budget next week.
  We have heard moving speeches from Welsh Members about the abuses in children's homes in north Wales. The report by Sir Ronald Waterhouse clearly showed the lack or the weakness of the policies of organisations that were there to protect the children. Sadly, we know that they failed those youngsters.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State will recall the Adjournment debate that I had on 15 February, when I called for the appointment of a children's commissioner. He referred then, as he did this morning, to the appointment of a children's rights director. We will watch with interest the appointment of the director. I hope that he or she will have wide-ranging powers and, above all, will regularly consult young people and organisations for the protection of children.
  I meet regularly with ombudsmen and women and commissioners for children through my work in the Council of Europe. They all speak of their success in building up confidence with children and children's organisations. I hope that, in the coming months, the new director will work on that.
  Before I came to this House, I chaired the children's committee of one of the largest London authorities, the London borough of Hammersmith. From my experiences, I know that we need a clear policy on the accountability of Government Departments. Often in local government, the roles of committees overlap and one finds repeatedly that Departments believe that an aspect of legislation is not their responsibility. The Government's proposals must make clear which organisation is responsible.
  I hope that the director will encourage children's organisations to co-operate on proposals to strengthen the law as it relates to children's rights. Also, we must get their opinions on legislation on children's rights and protection. We must seek at all times the views of children and young people; sadly, that has not been done often in the past.
  I am one of the British delegation from this Parliament to the Council of Europe, where I chair the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which looks at all issues concerning family life, especially those relating to children. Sadly, the work of the Council of Europe—and our opportunities to meet representatives of the 41 member states—is rarely discussed in this Parliament.
  I was in Paris on Wednesday chairing the Committee. We had four items on the agenda concerning children, including the role and responsibility of different
  678
  Governments on children. We learned a great deal. The Council of Europe—which has existed for 50 years—was at the forefront in the preparation of the UN convention on the rights of the child, and we have a close involvement with UNICEF. I hope that the Government and the director will work closely with the Council of Europe. We have the opportunity to learn from other member states about the legislation they have introduced and how it works. The House has missed the opportunity of working with the Council of Europe and its Committees for too long.
  I have one or two specific issues to raise. First, there has recently been much coverage of the court cases involving paedophiles. Those who abuse children, boys or girls, are dangerous and evil people. They often totally refuse to accept the damage that they have done to children. The Waterhouse report makes that damage clear, and my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the number of young people who have been abused who take their own lives. All the evidence shows that the rest suffer throughout their lives as a result of the abuse.
  I welcome the register of sex offenders, but I hope that we will make it clear that when such people are released from prison, as some will be, they will never work with children again. Wandsworth prison, in my constituency, has one of the biggest rule 43 units in the country. It contains men who have committed offences against children, and some who have been convicted of rape. When one meets those men, one soon learns that they have no regrets about what they have done to children and young people. If they are released from prison—and I am not one to say that they should never be released—we should have effective safeguards in place to ensure that they never work with children or young people again. It is the duty of the Government and local authorities to ensure that. I accept that it is not always easy to prevent sex offenders from working with children—people can move to different areas and adopt new identities. However, we must make it clear that we will not tolerate offenders being allowed to work with children again.
  My second point concerns pornography. Our society has changed enormously and many of the things that we now see on television would have deeply shocked people just a few years ago. They would not even have been allowed to be shown on television. I am deeply concerned about the growth of pornography. Often, we read that the only type of pornography that individuals want is that which involves young people and children.
  A case was reported in the national press only this week of a head teacher who was sent to prison for five months. I wonder whether a sentence of five months for someone who has been involved in child pornography is long enough. I would like to know much more about the case because the sentence seems inadequate. The House must remember that the person involved was a primary school head teacher.
  Some people claim that although their interest is in child pornography, they are very different from people who trade in such material. I see no difference at all—young people are abused to make that material. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who will wind up the debate, will assure the House that the courts will not accept that there is a difference between users of such material and traders in it, and that those users will not be treated more leniently.

  679
  Finally, I come to the question of refugees, especially those who are children. The debate is entitled "Safeguards for Children". In recent weeks, there have been many press stories about women begging with young children. That is a regular sight in my constituency. The begging is frightening and aggressive, and it arouses hostility in decent men and women who are usually generous towards people who have come to this country to escape religious or political persecution at home. It is time something was done.
  I have received many complaints from constituents on this matter, and on 7 February I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asking what action the Government proposed. The reply from the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), outlined the existing legislation and the measures that the Government intend to introduce. I have told my local police that I hope that they will enforce the existing legislation.
  On 6 March, I asked the Home Office another question about the numbers of asylum seekers being housed in Greater London. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), replied on 13 March. She said that the number of asylum seekers in Greater London area came to 59,350. I shall give the House some examples of the numbers in individual boroughs. There are 570 refugees living in Sutton, 2,540 in Barking and Dagenham, 5,040 in Haringey, and 5,870 in Newham. In my borough of Wandsworth, there are 980 refugees. In her reply, my hon. Friend said that those figures included 3,320 unaccompanied minors under 17. Those youngsters were allowed into the United Kingdom unaccompanied. I make no comment on whether they should have been allowed in, but we have a right to know what kind of welfare and supervision exists for them. For example, who was informed when they came here? Which organisations are looking after them? I do not know the age span of those youngsters because that information was not included in my hon. Friend's reply, but I know that they are under 17.
  When we see these very young children taken by, one assumes, their mother on begging expeditions, we have a right to ask whether they go to school, because some of them are of school age. Do we know where they live? Do we know how they live? The responsibilities of Government Departments often overlap, as do those of local authority departments. Surely the welfare and protection of young refugee children is the responsibility of the Department of Health. I hope that if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot tell me today what supervision his Department seeks to enforce on the welfare of these youngsters, he will write to me about it.
  The number of refugees living in London is of great concern to many Members of Parliament representing London constituencies, but it is a separate issue from the welfare and protection of these young children. Who is responsible for that? As other hon. Members have said, we are talking about the welfare and protection of all children and young people. We do not mean certain children who come from a different kind of background. The welfare of all children is crucial. I pay tribute again to the work that the Government have been doing. My hon. Friend the Minister of State outlined in his speech the legislation that will be introduced in the coming months.
  680
  We have had an excellent debate in which the Waterhouse report has figured prominently. However, I would like to have more debates on this kind of issue. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned adoption. The Committee that I chair in Europe produced a report on adoption which contained some horrendous findings about the problems and abuse that youngsters can face even when they are adopted. We should have the opportunity to discuss that.
  I asked a parliamentary question last week about the number of youngsters held in secure training centres. The reply on 9 March said that 103 youngsters between the ages of 12 and 14 were being held in secure training centres. We never have debates in the House about the system adopted in those centres. That is something else that we should have an opportunity to discuss.
  I am glad to have had this opportunity to speak. I have heard interesting and deeply moving speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. No matter which side we sit on, all hon. Members must be committed to the welfare and protection of children.
  1.45 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: We have rightly had a sober debate about a subject that demanded it. We are discussing safeguards for children, the most vulnerable people in our society whether they are in foster care, adoption or even boarding school. There are 13 million children in the United Kingdom. Many of those of whom we have spoken have special needs, making them even more vulnerable.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health said that 32 police inquiries are going on into child abuse—a chilling statistic. The Waterhouse report is one of the most disturbing documents that I have ever read. The prospect of its being the tip of the iceberg should make us all feel cold. We are talking about sexual, physical and mental abuse. Children in our care must have proper protection, the best that we can afford them. We must put strategies in place to ensure sufficient detection and prosecution.
  As the Minister said, no one who reads the report can fail to be shocked. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), as Secretary of State for Wales, began the judicial review into the care of children in 70 homes in Clwyd and Gwynedd from 1974 onwards. The review began in 1997—it was a long time in coming. Waterhouse has made 72 recommendations across a comprehensive range including training, care planning, fostering breakdown, staff recruitment, the duty to report abuse and vitally important whistleblowing procedures.
  The role of elected members is also mentioned at page 224. I was a West Glamorgan county councillor for six years, and I do not think that sufficient stress was laid on what my duties should be in regard to children in our care. That recommendation must be fully implemented, and councillors must be given sufficient advice and training in what to look for. I was a young councillor, and even if I had been told what to look for, I am not sure that I would have had the tools and wisdom to see it. Councillors have a vital role, and I am disturbed that the Government's response to the report seems to be slipping. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on when the Government will respond. I heard what the Secretary of State for Wales had to say in the St. David's day debate—on 2 Marchand was grateful for it.

  681
  Several hon. Members have discussed the need for more foster care, as the Minister did when he opened the debate. He said that there are 32,000 foster carers, and that he wants more. We welcome that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has set up a commission to consider fostering and adoption. The Minister will welcome all the advice he can get when he considers how to persuade more youngsters into foster care or adoption.
  Education is important. A constituent of mine who is a foster parent has a statemented child with special needs. We must ensure that there is proper provision for that child within the area where he or she happens to be. It is not appropriate to put a child on a bus, or in a taxi, to travel to school many miles outside the area, when schools are available locally. That child was offered 10 hours education a week. That is not suitable; I hope that the local authorities will ensure that there is proper provision for children who are being fostered, as such situations will continue to arise.
  The roles of the children's commissioner and the children's rights director have been mentioned. The precise title of that person does not bother me, as long as the duties are such that they ensure the proper protection of children. I am sure that the Minister is fully aware of the request by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that the commissioner should operate throughout the country. The commissioner should be fully independent, but should have a wide remit that does not only cover children in care.
  The Minister will also know that the NSPCC's call is supported by several reputable organisations, including Barnardos, Childline, UNICEF UK and Oxfam. In opinion polls on an independent office for children, 85 per cent. of those responding said yes. It is obviously a matter that we must consider carefully.
  The Minister mentioned the beacon councils of Suffolk, Wakefield, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster. We applaud the good work that they are doing and look forward to the time when the best practice in those areas rolls around to the rest of the country.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and several other hon. Members mentioned recommendation 71 of the Waterhouse report, which deals with Jillings. It is right that that recommendation be taken on board. It deals with the problem of advice from lawyers acting on behalf of local authorities. We should examine the role played by insurance companies during that time to ensure that reports, such as Jillings, will never be suppressed in future. Had that report become public earlier, several children who were abused would not have suffered in that way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred to the measures on which the Government have already embarked. We welcome that. They are building on legislation that was introduced by the Conservative Government and we support what they are doing. However, my hon. Friend is right to question some aspects of those measures. He referred to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill; the ink is hardly dry on some of the Government's proposals. However, we shall support any common-sense measures proposed by the Government to try to eradicate the abuses that we have been discussing.
  682
  The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) spoke eloquently on the Waterhouse report; he showed great knowledge of the subject—of the problems of abuse and of the number of inquiries that are currently under way. When people realise how many police inquiries and internal inquiries have been set up, they will scratch their heads and wonder why we are holding the debate and why action was not taken sooner to ensure that some of the problems were sorted out. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the wider implications of the Waterhouse report.
  The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), whose reputation on this matter precedes him, talked about the urgency of adopting the Waterhouse recommendations. He was right to do so. He too referred to recommendations 71 and 72 and to the string of previous reports.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) spoke about the cover-ups over previous reports. That too relates to recommendation 71. It is disturbing that a cover-up could take place, as is the fact that people in positions of responsibility were involved in abuse. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and his hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd, that there is no reason why we should not make public the names of those who have admitted carrying out abuse. However, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South will also know that another reason why such names should be made public is to exonerate innocent people who have been under suspicion. If the names are not published, suspicion might always linger around those people. It is right that people who have been involved in abuse be properly investigated, and I hope that I correctly understood the hon. Gentleman to say that they should be properly investigated and that those who have not yet been brought to justice should be brought to justice as soon as possible.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: That is precisely what I was saying, but I was also trying to say that people should be named only if they have not been properly investigated, for the sole purpose of bringing their names into the public domain to protect children from potential abuse.
  Mr. Evans: I also assume that all the people under suspicion in cases described in the Waterhouse report would have been properly investigated before the report came anywhere near us. I can only hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that all those names have been properly investigated.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) spoke about the need for better strategies and the involvement of the voluntary sector. I agree with her on that.
  The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd spoke feelingly about some anecdotal evidence of abuse. The nine suicides that he mentioned are chilling indeed. He also asked the Minister that the parents of Craig Wilson be given information about the death of their son. I find it astonishing that that information has not previously been given. We add our support to the request that the parents be given information as to what happened leading up to the death of their son.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spoke, also with passion, about the restoration of the years of innocence; we can only agree with him on that. It seems as though children become

  683
  adults suddenly at the age of three or four, which is rather sad. Therefore, I believe that we could all support the restoration of the years of innocence. My hon. Friend also spoke with great knowledge, with his experience on the Select Committee on Social Services and the Select Committee on Health, about the stress and trauma experienced by professionals involved in abuse cases. We too easily forget the stress and trauma that must build up in people who are involved in such cases. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) gave a prelude to that when she spoke about her involvement in the passage of the Protection of Children Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield also spoke about the businesses that have become involved in what might be described as a twinning arrangement with children's homes. We should encourage many businesses to form such links, to afford opportunities to youngsters who otherwise would not get them.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge on the work that she has done in steering the Protection of Children Bill through the House; it is now the Protection of Children Act 1999. She spoke with great passion about the knowledge that she gained—the learning experience of steering the Bill through the House—and suggestions that she now has to improve on the 1999 Act. The Government should listen carefully to her calls for a strong United Kingdom commissioner for children. The hon. Lady also spoke about the fact that the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill will build on the 1999 Act. We applaud that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who also has experience on the Health Committee, spoke about the abuses of migrants from the UK to Australia as children. He also spoke with emotion about the fact that he can still go to his parents' house and play with his toys. [HON. MEMBERS: "How often?"] Probably on a regular basis. We were all heartened by that, but of course he is saying something important about the fact that youngsters in care do not have the same sort of building blocks that the rest of have—the security that we all have from knowing that we can always go home to our parents. He also spoke about the vital need for the pathway plans for those up to the age of 21.
  The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) has enormous experience in considering these issues at the Council of Europe. I wish that more were done with the Council of Europe's reports. Perhaps more debates on its recommendations could take place in the House, but I congratulate him on the hard work that he has done. He spoke with passion about the evils of paedophilia, and I do not suspect that anyone in the House would disagree with a single word that he said about that.
  The hon. Gentleman also spoke with feeling—I am glad that he did—about the problems with asylum seekers. We are debating the welfare of children and that means all the children who reside in this country. Social services have a serious role in that, and the Government have a duty to take a strong position on the way in which children and babies are used as tools for begging on the streets and on the tube by, in the main, eastern European refugees. Children and babies should not be used in that way.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of the fact that children wander about on their own, begging. I have seen youngsters as young as 12 or 13 carrying younger children with them. That is quite appalling. It is totally wrong for
  684
  youngsters to spend hours on the underground or on the streets and to carry even younger children with them in the attempt to shame people into giving money. That must be stopped as a matter of urgency. A strategy must be put in place for refugees and their children while they are in this country. The Government must not turn a blind eye to a growing and appalling practice.
  I applaud the work of charities, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which do so much work. This week, I met representatives of the NSPCC who told me that, last year, they were called into 82 investigations because of their knowledge of working with children and in children's homes. Local authorities use the NSPCC as an independent source to investigate particular problems and I have already said that it has called for an independent children's commissioner.
  Conservative Members believe that much has already been done in the legislation that we introduced and since the inquiry that was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. We passed several pieces of legislation when we were in government and we have supported this Government's legislation on this issue since 1997. It is right that we consider and scrutinise such legislation carefully to ensure that it is right and proper and does the job that we want. Too many people will read this debate and wonder why more was not done in the past by both Governments and by social services under the political direction of all parties.
  The system has let down the children, and this debate is about them. They do not have a voice other than through us here. That is why we must redouble our efforts to ensure that we introduce the right measures to protect them. It has been said—and I can only agree—that we shall not fully eliminate the problem, but that should not stop us trying. We cannot prevent individual cases from happening, but we must ensure that the wholesale abuse that was revealed in the Waterhouse report and other inquires never again happens to children in care. The Government will always receive the support of the official Opposition for any common-sense measures that will help to prevent the most corrosive and squalid practices from happening in our society.
  2.3 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): We have had an intensely interesting, moving and harrowing debate in which hon. Members have described their experiences and policy suggestions to the House. I welcome the tone of the debate and the fact that we have had a strong element of cross-party support for the aim of providing positive safeguards for children.
  I welcome the debate, not least because I am the father of three children under the age of 12 and because I represent a constituency in north Wales, in which many of my constituents were the victims of child abuse and violence because the system failed them. The debate has given us the chance to show the importance that the Government and the House attach to listening to children and to ensuring that effective systems are in place to prevent abuse in future.
  Let my say at the outset that children deserve to be safe and protected. Abuse has lasting and terrible effects on children, not only in their formative years but for the rest of their lives, and accordingly shapes the whole of our

  685
  future society. The Government are committed to protecting children, and in the past three years we have considered and reconsidered the safeguards in place to protect them.
  We have responded to the findings of the Utting report, and we continue to pursue that agenda. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health said in opening the debate, we have put in place a series of initiatives to help to ensure as far as possible that there are effective measures to prevent further abuse.
  The Protection of Children Act 1999, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), the quality protects and children first programmes, the Care Standards Bill and the Children (Leaving Care) Bill are all important measures, to which I shall return after I have responded to hon. Members' contributions.
  It is the paramount duty of Government to ensure that a safe environment exists for our children, and this Government take that duty very seriously. The Waterhouse report, our response to its recommendations and today's debate are only the latest steps in our assessment of the risks that children face.
  We have had an interesting debate, which has been permeated by certain serious themes. Those issues are important, and I shall respond to all hon. Members in my winding-up speech as far as I can and contact them with further information after the debate, if my hon. Friend and I have not, between us, covered all the points mentioned.
  In the past, there was inconsistent control and poor management of children in care, and we must make sure that it does not happen again. A considered response to recommendations is needed to help to prevent those tragic events from recurring. We need to take immediate steps to stop known offenders offending again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said.
  There must be partnership with the devolved Administrations and local authorities to protect children, deliver effective services and ensure that those people who have abused are not currently working with children. We need to rebuild trust and ensure that we listen to children because what they are saying is as relevant to our day-to-day lives as it is to theirs. All that underlines the Government's commitment to safeguard children.
  I say to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that I appreciate the consensus on these issues and the serious consideration of them. There is cross-party support for tackling them. First and foremost, the hon. Gentleman raised family policy, and there is strong cross-party support for the family. The Government have introduced the sure start initiative in England and Wales, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health has provided additional resources to support that initiative. Although there may be political disagreements, which I will not bring into play now, child benefit and the working families tax credit are important in helping to underpin the security that families bring to our community, and the Government want to support those policies.
  686
  The hon. Gentleman raised important issues about the Care Standards Bill. As he knows, the House will shortly have an opportunity to consider that Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will be dealing with that Bill, and I look forward to listening to hon. Members' concerns. The hon. Gentleman asked important questions that deserve answers. We envisage that the National Care Standards Commission will look at regulation and inspection, work to national minimum standards and set professional training standards for the work force to ensure that we protect and regulate care standards.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised important issues on the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. The Government will certainly consider extending the powers of that Bill to 18 to 21-year-olds when resources permit. The matter is important and I look forward, as does my hon. Friend the Minister of State, to discussing those issues with the hon. Gentleman in due course. The Government will certainly encourage voluntary organisations to play an important part in providing such services. I recognise that organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and those providing residential care play an important part not just in protecting children, but generally in our society.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health are carefully considering the review of adoption services and will be making recommendations in due course. I hope that we shall scrutinise them on a cross-party basis. There is ground for consensus.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) raised very important points. I pay tribute to his work as my predecessor in what was then the Welsh Office during the first year of the Labour Government. He brings to the debate great knowledge of the importance of safeguards for children and their rights. I welcome his contribution to today's debate.
  My hon. Friend dealt with two specific points, both of which were also raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I shall deal with them immediately. My hon. Friend mentioned the question of the National Assembly's role and the children's commissioner for Wales. Sir Ronald Waterhouse recommended such a commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales wanted to take immediate action to ensure that we indicated our strong support for legislation on that matter as soon as possible. He announced in the St. David's day debate on 2 March that we would take the issue forward. I am pleased to confirm that we will amend the Care Standards Bill to allow the National Assembly to establish a children's commissioner for Wales.
  I know—because the National Assembly is still considering the matter—that it wants to consider a wider remit for the commissioner. We shall certainly consider sympathetically and with urgency its reports once the Care Standards Bill has been dealt with. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and the right hon. Member for Caernarfon will recognise that, for the reasons that we have discussed, the Government want to act quickly, table an amendment that covers children in care and ensure that the Assembly is given initial powers

  687
  to get the matter moving. I hope that that reassures hon. Members. In due course, we shall certainly look at the National Assembly's proposals.
  Mr. Hammond: Would there be any logic in finding a different solution in Wales from that ultimately found in England, given that the problem is universal?
  Mr. Hanson: The issue is one of devolution. I am pleased and impressed that my party and, indeed, other parties, were committed on entering the Assembly election to the establishment of a children's commissioner. I believe strongly that a children's rights director in England will deal with many similar issues. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, we should not get too hung up on titles. The devolved Assembly will develop different solutions for Wales. What is important is the output and the protection that results.
  The right hon. Member for Caernarfon and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend mentioned advocacy services. As the right hon. Gentleman will understand, there have been six months of research into such services in Wales by the National Assembly. The Assembly is considering the findings of the report on that research.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted urgency. The ministerial safeguards committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister, is considering such matters urgently. The National Assembly is represented on that committee by Jane Hutt, the Assembly Secretary. We met very soon after the Waterhouse report was published, and again in the past 10 days. We shall meet again shortly to produce the Government's response.
  We are addressing the issue as a matter of urgency. However, in considering the report and its recommendations, we are also trying to include various people—Members of the National Assembly and of the Scottish Executive, Ministers from various Departments, and various people outside government. We have to get our response right and to inject urgency into our proceedings, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health wants to do precisely that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) raised some important issues. The first one was insurance cover, which was mentioned also by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). The Jillings report was dealt with by Clywd county council, and advice from insurers influenced the council's decisions on it.
  The Local Government Association has now issued guidance to local authorities in England and Wales recommending principles to be applied when considering arrangements for an inquiry, particularly the relationship between insurance companies and local authorities. The guidance has been drawn up by the Local Government Association, with the support of the Association of British Insurers. My Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are considering those issues.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South also mentioned the tribunal's naming policy, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane). The tribunal's naming policy, stated in chapter 6, was clear
  688
  and specific. The tribunal considered all the evidence in detail—in more detail than hon. Members could have dealt with at the time—and, in chapter 6, stated:
  we do not consider that the evidence against particular individuals has been such as to warrant naming them, bearing in mind the climate in which they were working.
  I emphasise that the tribunal was independent of the Government. I also do not want to compromise the tribunal's independence by questioning the way in which Sir Ronald and the other tribunal members conducted the inquiry. We have to recognise that the tribunal has considered the evidence and that it reached that conclusion. I tell my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South and for Vale of Clwyd that, although I realise that that policy will disappoint them, we have to acknowledge the tribunal's conclusions.
  Mr. Hammond: On the day that the Waterhouse report was published, the Government extended the scope of the consultancy index and added to it names that had appeared in the report. Will the Minister assure the House that that was the first occasion on which the Government had sight of those names, and that there were no delays whatever in adding them to the extended consultancy index?
  Mr. Hanson: The day of the report's publication was the first day on which the Government could act on those names. Previously, the names identified in Sir Ronald's inquiry as having caused concern were passed to appropriate authorities. Prosecutions have been conducted in some of those cases. However, the Government could take action on the matter only on publication of the report.
  Mr. Evans: In the statement on the Waterhouse report, the Secretary of State for Wales said that various bodies working with children would receive the list of individuals and have to reply on whether any of them had been working in their area. What was the response to the request—was anyone found?
  Mr. Hanson: If I may, I would prefer to reply to that in writing. I do not have to hand the facts and figures, and I do not wish to mislead the hon. Gentleman on the list's impact. Some names were identified. I shall certainly reply to him on that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd also mentioned Craig Wilson and his family, who contacted my hon. Friend. Before boundary reorganisation, Craig Wilson was my constituent, and I met Mr. and Mrs. Wilson when I was their Member of Parliament. If my hon. Friend would write to me with the family's difficulties and details on the issue that he raised today, I shall urgently investigate the matter and report back to him as soon as practicable.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) raised several important issues about support and counselling. I am sorry that she was not able to be here for the final speeches, but I valued her contribution.
  The right hon. Member for Macclesfield—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Not yet.
  Mr. Hanson: Sorry, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Perhaps I could do him a service after his 30 years in the House. I welcomed and valued his contribution. His work as the Chairman of the Health Committee during my first Parliament was valued by many Labour Members and others. He raised important points about recognising the role of the mother and the family. I come from a happy family. Despite many financial deprivations, I was fortunate enough to grow up in a family that had security, warmth, love and care. The most important thing that we can give our children is a sure start in life. The hon. Gentleman's points were well made.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge on her recent initiative in bringing forward the Protection of Children Act 1999. I look forward to its implementation. The Government are listening to her important points about a Minister and a Department for children. We shall examine the representations in due course. Her points about domestic violence and the importance of security in the home are equally well taken.
  The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) also made some points that struck a chord with me. Despite my constituency and Government experience, the debate was slightly abstract for me until the hon. Gentleman made the strong point that many children who grow up in care disappear and do not have the solid base that many of us have to refer to. That has left an impression on me about the impact of the lasting difficulties that such children face as a result of the lack of a solid family base. I thank him for that contribution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting talked about the children's rights director. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health believes in a strong role for that senior post in the National Care Standards Commission. It is a real breakthrough for looked-after children that will bolster the Government's commitment to improving safeguards for them. When the appointment is in place it will make a real difference.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting also mentioned the important role of Europe. Paedophile behaviour, the control of pornography and refugees are pan-European issues. I would welcome debates in the House on the reports that my hon. Friend mentioned from his work with the Council of Europe. His important points on pornography and refugees are well met. I do not have ministerial responsibility for either issue, but I shall draw the attention of the relevant Home Office Ministers to his comments.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked how many people we found following the publication of the Waterhouse report. By the magic of this place, I now have further information on that. Twenty-eight individuals whose whereabouts and employment status were unknown were identified in the Waterhouse report as abusers of children. As a result of the inquiries that were immediately initiated, we were able to establish the whereabouts of all of them. One person was found to be working with children and was immediately suspended. I hope that that obviates the need for a letter, but if the hon. Gentleman requires further information I shall certainly follow the point up.
  I have tried to cover as many issues as I can in the time available. The Waterhouse report will have a significant and lasting impact on Government policy and children's
  690
  rights. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State submitted the report to the House and I remind hon. Members of the background to the inquiry and the report.
  Mr. Evans: I have a question about the information that the Minister has just given us about the person who was found still to be involved with children. It was quite disturbing news and I am pleased that the individual concerned was suspended. Has there been an investigation to ensure that there has been no incidence of abuse in the institution where that person was working?
  Mr. Hanson: I understand that the individual concerned was working for an authority in the west midlands. He was suspended immediately, so it is now a matter for the authority and the employing organisation. The Government will certainly take an interest in the outcome of that case.
  The Waterhouse report drew 95 conclusions and made 72 recommendations. Some were specific to Wales and others had wider implications. The report made important recommendations on assessment and care planning, inter-agency working, recruitment and retention of staff, foster carers, inspection and regulation of private residential schools and all forms of residential care and on common standards of care. We must certainly address the catalogue of errors and mistreatment to which the Waterhouse report drew attention.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State outlined some of the steps that have been taken. In Wales, in which I have a particular interest, the National Assembly is already working up detailed proposals for a children's commissioner. The Secretary of State for Wales has announced that the Government will table amendments to the Care Standards Bill to legislate for a children's commissioner for Wales. That was the first recommendation in the report and we have taken this early opportunity to implement it for children in care. The Government will also consider with sympathy the urgency of the Assembly's proposals, when they are made.
  On the day of the publication of the report, the Department of Health took immediate action in respect of the names of the individuals mentioned in the report. It is important to recognise that the Government have not been complacent. We have established a ministerial task force under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, comprising 10 Ministers from across Government to ensure that our response to the Waterhouse report is comprehensive and wide-ranging.
  The task force has identified priority areas where further action is needed, which my hon. Friend outlined in his speech. They are the commissioner for looked-after children, the complaints procedure, the independent advocacy services, the human resources issues and the future role of residential care as a placement choice. We shall report as soon as practicable—I hope by the summer—and I look forward to the Government's further proposals to implement those recommendations.
  As my hon. Friend said, before the publication of the report, the Government took a range of important steps in response to the Utting report and the Protection of Children Act. The Care Standards Bill will introduce improved arrangements in England and Wales for an independent regulation service. The Bill also contains specific clauses to reflect the situation in Wales. The

  691
  Assembly will have the power to establish the commission for care standards which will be part of the National Assembly rather than an independent statutory body as planned in England. Devolution will mean differences, but we should support and relish those differences. It is important that the Assembly and the Government reflect the needs of each individual nation within the United Kingdom.
  The Children (Leaving Care) Bill will provide further support. The Government have launched major new programmes, including children first in Wales and quality protects in England. The importance of those programmes cannot be overstated.
  In conclusion, the aim of all that the Government have done, including the programmes that we have undertaken before Waterhouse and those that we will undertake in future, is to ensure that those responsible for children in need and looked-after children—in social services, education and the health service—play their full part in raising standards. Today's debate has been an important stage in that process. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to it. I assure them, and others who have taken an interest in the debate, that all the points that have been made will be considered and that we shall act in the short term and in the long term to prevent those horrific occurrences from happening again. We must ensure that children are safe. The Government are committed to that and, as far as we can, we shall protect children and make sure that safeguards for children are protected in future.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  Dairy Farming (South Gloucestershire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: This is a very appropriate time for this debate. We had a national report from the Agriculture Committee at the end of January that concluded:
  There is without doubt a crisis in dairy farming and, sadly, there are likely to be more casualties before any real recovery is felt.
  This week, we have had a mass lobby of Parliament by dairy farmers, and a farming summit is coming up in a couple of weeks at Downing street. Within the past 48 hours, the Minister has been at the Dispatch Box tackling the subject of dairy fanning, and I read the report of what was said in the early hours of the morning. I will try not to go over all the same ground, and I hope that she will feel able to do the same.
  The debate is also timely for me locally, as a constituency Member. Dairy farmers in my area have been expressing their anger. A couple of weeks ago, more than 250 farmers from my constituency and beyond met in Thornbury to protest about their situation, and about a third of them went on to protest outside a local dairy. There were remarkable scenes—I understand that the protest was very orderly—and at 11.30 at night the dairy management arrived and were willing to talk to the local farmers. I welcome that dialogue, but it is an extraordinary situation.
  I was very struck by that demonstration, because it showed that the farmers felt that writing to me or to the Government or talking to the National Farmers Union might not achieve very much. They felt so frustrated at the worsening situation and the fact that no one seemed to be getting the message that they were driven to protest in a very visual way. It brought me up short and made me question whether I had been doing enough to represent their concerns. That is one of the reasons why I sought this Adjournment debate.
  The farmers clearly want action. I attended Agriculture questions yesterday and noted the response of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to a question about the milk price. He took the view that it was a matter of market process, and he used the phrase "supply chain" two or three times. There is an element of truth in what he said, but it will not have heartened the farmers in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will tell us today what the Government can do and are doing to help my constituents.
  I want to sketch out the national picture and to focus on the concerns of one farmer in my constituency. I visited Mr. Kevin Kingston, who explained to me that the three main sources of income for dairy farmers have all been hit—a triple whammy. First, cull cows, for which farmers might have got some value in the past, are now virtually worthless because of BSE, and the unrealistically restrictive weight limit on the over-30-months scheme is putting further pressure on farmers.
  Secondly, there is now little or no market for dairy bull calves, which would perhaps have been exported in the past. There was Government assistance until last summer under the calf processing aid scheme, but that has now ended. Typically, a bull calf will now be shot at birth—often by the local hunt, apparently.

  693
  Thirdly, and perhaps crucially, the real price of milk is now about half of what it was 30 years ago. Farmers in my constituency are talking about a price of 8p a pint, which is clearly below even the cost of production.
  Nationally, incomes in the dairy sector fell by 21 per cent. last year, but they have fallen by three quarters since the mid-1990s. I recognise that one can pick any very high base and show a big fall, but for those of us on secure salaries, having to cope with a quarter of what we had five years earlier is unimaginable—yet that is what farmers have had to do.
  The factors behind the fall in the milk price are well known and are clearly not all under the direct control of the Government. I want to identify three, all of which suggest some possible response. The first is the strength of sterling against the euro, both its direct effect and—as the Minister remarked a day or two ago—the indirect effects, such as the price support mechanism.
  The second factor is the weak position of the sellers in the market. Much comment has been made on the competition report on Milk Marque. Farmers give a hollow laugh at the suggestion that they were somehow terribly powerful in the milk market. Given the long-standing decline in milk prices, the idea that Milk Marque was a powerful factor in the market seems overstated. The third factor is that there has been a fall in demand for milk products in overseas markets such as Asia, the former Soviet Union and elsewhere.
  That is the national background against which farmers are having to work. Locally, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to particular concerns. Dairy farming is important in my constituency, and yet it is in significant decline. I am aware that there is a national decline, but it seems to be quite marked in my area.
  One farmer in Pilning wrote to me to say that, 15 years ago, there were 11 viable dairy farms within a one-mile radius of his farm. He expects that, by the end of the year, it will be down to one or two. A point made forcefully to me by farmers in my constituency is that it is not just the old who are retiring and going out of the business, and it is not just the inefficient who are being forced out. It is very often the most efficient and the best farms that are going under. Some of those which have invested and overstretched are most vulnerable to a downturn, to interest rate rises and so forth. It is not just the weeding out of the weak, but the collapse of the very businesses that we would want to keep going.
  There is a fear that more is on the way within the local area. The chairman of Chipping Sodbury National Farmers Union, Mr. Michael Weaver, wrote to me this week saying:
  I am at the sharp end of the industry and know that another price cut in milk will be the end for many producers, especially tenant farmers still paying high rents.
  There is very much a local fear that what has gone on is set to continue; there is no sense that we have bottomed out yet. The milk price may be nearing the bottom—it probably could not fall much further anyway—but there is still a sense that there are many more closures to come unless urgent action is taken.
  694
  It is clear that my constituents are talking not just about those who work on the farms, but those in the ancillary industries. Another farmer wrote to say:
  I've spoken to people in the ancillary trades, feed merchants, vets, auctioneers and they are all seeing their farming related business falling substantially and they are very worried about the future because many dairy farmers are considering packing it in.
  I understand that a local firm manufacturing trailers closed a few months ago, and an agricultural engineering firm at Thornbury in my constituency closed only last month. That is a further local pressure that is causing concern.
  Another local factor links to the demonstration that I mentioned earlier, which is the strengthening position of purchasers of farmgate milk. The Minister will be aware of the merger of Dairy Crest and Unigate, which gives them an important market share nationally. In addition, it has been estimated to me that, within the south-west, they may have as much as a 60 per cent. market share in milk; that is what the local NFU believes.
  Given the Government's concern about fair competition, I am concerned that a 60 per cent. share in purchasing will do only one thing to farmgate prices—put further downward pressure on them. That is particularly acute in the south-west. The Prime Minister and other Ministers tell farmers that they want a stable, long-term framework, and clearly we are all of one mind on that. However, many, if not most, of those farmers will not be there in the long term, and short-term measures are needed as well. I want to touch on four very briefly.
  Agrimonetary compensation is regularly mentioned, and I am aware from the Minister's comments of 48 hours ago that this is not free money. We are aware that there is a cost attached to it, and an issue of prioritisation. One farmer told me that that must be measured against the cost of unemployed farmers and the knock-on effect on the ancillary industries. There is a temptation to characterise this as a large sum of money and, obviously, only a part would feed through into the dairy industry. Clearly, there are savings from investing the money now, and I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that. I know that the Secretary of State said yesterday that it is still on the table, but the deadline is getting tight and farmers want to know. I hope that the Minister will offer some reassurance.
  The second thing that the Government can do is, metaphorically, to bang heads together—they can get people round the table, such as the supermarkets, the dairies and the farmers, who, perhaps, have not always worked together effectively. The Government can encourage them to see their common interest in having a long-term secure supply of British milk to the British market. Government have a role to play in co-ordination and in emphasising the need to work together, and I hope that they will do more of that.
  Thirdly, the Government should give farmers more freedom to work together in producing milk products. I have read the Minister's comments on that, but one of the advantages that has not been stressed enough is that if we could move milk output from the liquid milk market into milk products, we could affect the surplus in the overall market that is depressing the price. As well as assisting farmers in competition, co-operation in processing would also improve the milk price as a beneficial spin-off.

  695
  Finally, the Government should take measures to stimulate demand generally. The issue of free school milk was mentioned in the earlier debate in a negative context, in the sense that the Government are trying to stop a subsidy scheme being removed, but I hope that the Minister will talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment about extending free school milk. It is good for the health of our children and probably for their education, because well-nourished children study better. It is a win-win situation that would help the domestic dairy sector. I welcome the Minister's suggestion for generic milk campaigns, such as the "Drinka pinta milka day" campaign. I hope that she will say how much the Government will put into that and how long it will take to come on-stream.
  Local farmers in my constituency have, regrettably, lost faith that anyone is listening to them. I have sought to be measured—I note that the earlier debate was measured, not hysterical—but I wish also to convey a sense of the anger and frustration that dairy farmers feel. I am aware that the Minister receives many invitations, but I invite her to visit south Gloucestershire to meet the farmers and to hear about the pressures they face, including the particular local factors that I have mentioned. I hope that she will be able to offer them reassurance that the Government understand their concerns and are taking action that will have an effect in the short term, as well as the long term.
  I can do no more than conclude with a quotation from the group secretary of my local National Farmers Union, Mr. Robin Winfield, who wrote me a short letter in advance of this debate. He said:
  with the price of milk forecast to drop even more, it clearly has reached an unsustainable level, and the flow of dairy farms that we have seen going out so far will, I feel, shortly become a flood.
  I hope that the Minister will come and meet my farmers and tell them what she plans to do to ensure that that prophecy does not come true.
  2.42 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate. I understand the concerns that he has expressed on behalf of his constituents, and I assure him that I have already met farmers from Gloucestershire on a couple of occasions. He mentioned that many farmers in his area felt that no one was listening, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food personally met farmers who took part in the demonstration and the march that came to Westminster this week. Indeed, he spent some time listening to their concerns.
  The hon. Gentleman's concerns match those that have been raised by several hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, this week, both in the debate that took place earlier in the week and in the exchanges in Agriculture questions yesterday. At least the hon. Gentleman can take some satisfaction from the fact that his debate is at a more reasonable time of day than the one to which I had to respond just 48 hours ago.
  The hon. Gentleman urged me to try to address some different issues during this response, and I shall certainly try to avoid stale repetition of what I have said before, but the essentials of the situation remain very much the same and I shall have to refer to, and perhaps amplify, some of the same issues today.
  696
  I shall begin, however, by placing on record the Government's pleasure at the good news from Germany today. The German Parliament has voted in favour of lifting the ban on British beef. We are very pleased at that, and I am sure that the news will be widely welcomed in the agriculture industry.
  It is good news for two reasons. It shows that the rules of the single market are being respected. It is also important in terms of the signals that it sends to the world beyond the European Union. Third-country markets can have increasing confidence in the safety of our beef and in the measures taken to render it among the safest in the world. The Government take satisfaction in the German vote, and intend to build on it in the coming months to regain export markets world wide.
  Understandably, the hon. Gentleman spoke movingly about the problems in his area. South Gloucestershire is one of the country's most important dairy production areas. The region has more than a third of the total English dairy herd, and dairy farming is, in terms of size, the most important of our agricultural sectors. It is a regionally important economic activity, in terms of direct employment and in terms of the numbers of allied jobs generated both upstream and downstream.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituents take events and developments in the sector very seriously, and he referred earlier to protests at local dairies about the price that local farmers receive for their milk. I am also aware that bovine tuberculosis causes concern in the hon. Gentleman's area. That is one of the most complex and controversial animal health problems, and the rising incidence of TB in cattle is a serious matter. The Government are seeking a science-based solution that will be in the long-term interests of farmers, wildlife and the taxpayer.
  The Government's five-point research and control strategy is designed to examine all aspects of the disease and to provide a sustainable solution for the long term. The various elements of the strategy include research into transmission, the hunt for a vaccine and the protection of public health.
  Research is also being undertaken into the controls that affect cattle, and into those that affect badgers. The trial involving badgers is the most controversial element of the research, but we must try to determine once and for all the role that badgers play in cattle TB. For that reason, we are determined to proceed as quickly as possible. Yesterday, my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, the Minister with responsibility for this area of policy in the Ministry of Agriculture, announced that a further two triplet areas had been enrolled in the trial.
  Interference with the trials helps no one, but merely delays the achievement of a science-based solution.
  Mr. Webb: I recently took a farming couple from my constituency, whose livelihood had been wiped out by bovine TB, to meet Baroness Hayman. Will the Minister update me on the progress of the trials, as part of my constituency is in the trial area?
  Ms Quin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the trials have three elements, which make up the triplet. I have nothing further to announce with regard to the details of the trials. It is true that part of the hon. Gentleman's area is one of the areas in the trial process.

  697
  We are aware of the financial difficulties faced by farmers following a TB outbreak. We compensate the farmer for 100 per cent. of the market value of the animal. We are also in discussion with farming interests at the TB forum about what more can be done. The forum includes conservation and veterinary interests. We are keen that all parts of the forum work together to ensure that we make progress and that the various elements are taken into account.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the all-important issue of the price of milk. Prices paid to milk producers have fallen substantially over the past two years and farm incomes have fallen in consequence. There is no way that we are underestimating the severity of the problem. It is a problem across Europe, although the United Kingdom is particularly severely affected. Some European countries such as Ireland, Spain and Germany have also experienced very low prices for milk.
  It is also true that in the single market and, indeed, in the wider world, the competitive situation for commodities such as butter, skimmed milk powder and various types of cheese is difficult. The weakening of certain markets, particularly in Russia and south-east Asia, has had a knock-on effect in making competition even more intense in the European market. Britain has faced that severe competitive situation in very difficult circumstances. There are some specifically British aspects to the situation which have caused difficulty for us. Even though the dairy industry has not been directly implicated in the BSE health scare, none the less, simply by association of ideas, the industry has not benefited from the negative climate surrounding British beef and agricultural products, which we are now addressing.
  The industry has also been greatly affected by the strong pound, which affects agriculture in a unique way. Contending with a strong pound is challenging for all exporting industries, but in agriculture the situation is compounded by the fact that we are dealing not just with imports and exports but with the basic support price. The support price is set in euros, and its value falls as sterling rises. The basic price sets a floor, but it means that the floor is even lower in our case when sterling is as strong as it is at present.
  The hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, referred to the difficulties surrounding the selling and marketing regime for milk. There was a period of uncertainty surrounding the initial deregulation which has, in more recent times, been compounded by the effects of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. The response to the report is crucial. We have welcomed the positive way in which Milk Marque has responded in its proposals for the three successor organisations. However, we are concerned about the ability of companies to be involved in processing. That is a very important element in terms of adding value and helping those involved at the producing end see some real benefits. I believe that the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture is very helpful in this respect. It endorses the views of people keen to see the maximum benefits derived from processing.
  The role of supermarkets has been much mentioned by dairy farmers this week. It is right that supermarkets should consider their position in response to the representations made, although they must work within
  698
  both commercial and anti-competitive constraints. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's stress on the importance of communication between various parts of the food chain. The Government are keen to promote good practice and communication. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture took an important food chain initiative; the report has been produced, but we shall certainly not sit back expecting problems to solve themselves. We have a continuing commitment to getting different parts of the food chain to work together and to understand the difficulties in other parts. We also seek greater stability and prosperity for basic producers in the chain.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to comments made by my right hon. Friend, who rightly made it clear that the Government could not intervene formally to set the price of milk. That said, I would contest any suggestion that my right hon. Friend feels that that should simply be left to the commercial sector and that the Government take no interest in it. In fact, my right hon. Friend is conscious of our opportunities to try to create a better climate for those commercial activities. We want to help both in the short term, and in the medium and long terms. The hon. Gentleman said that we had made several statements about future hopes for development of agriculture. In particular, we hope to advance matters using the rural development regulation. I assure him that we are in no way neglecting short-term problems, and we continue to focus on them.
  Many dairy farmers lobbied us hard about their fears for the introduction of cattle passports. I was particularly aware of that concern during my early days at the Ministry. Deferring charges for two and a half years equals £12 million of relief—£4.8 million annually.
  Mr. Webb: I met a farmer the other day who pointed out that the Government claim that not having put an extra burden on farmers is help. I appreciate that that burden might have been put on farmers, and that it has not. But if we say to someone who is drowning that we might throw a brick at him, and then do not do it, the person is still drowning. I hope that the Minister understands the point that I am making. The delay was welcome, but it does not make farmers any better off; it just leaves them where they were.
  Ms Quin: I understand the point, but I do not accept it. Farmers were worried about the scheme, and they were grateful that we responded by taking that decision.
  Many of the recommendations of the red tape review will help the livestock sector, including dairy farmers. Measures to promote generic advertising of milk will also be vital over the months to come. Last week, the scheme to allow such generic promotion was widely welcomed in Parliament. We know how effective such promotions have been in the past, and we should bear their importance in mind. We propose to move forward in months, not years, on that matter. Progress will happen in the near future.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the European Union school milk scheme—
  The motion having been made at half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Land Development
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to give local authorities more control over land development. [112614]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under our modernising planning initiative, local planning authorities, acting through regional planning bodies, are now responsible for preparing draft regional planning guidance. Local planning authorities have always been responsible for development plans and, in the first instance, for determining planning applications. We are committed to the plan-led system under which it is the local authority's development plan which provides the framework for decisions on the control of land development.

  Local Authority Airports
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what legal advice he has received in the last year on proposals to change the powers of local authorities in respect of airports they own. [114573]

  Mr. Mullin
  Local authorities are currently required to exercise their control over public airport companies in such a way that the companies do not engage in activities in which the local authorities themselves have no power to engage. Manchester Airport asked my right hon. Friend to remove this limitation by means of a provision in the Local Government Bill under which he could make regulations extending the powers of airport companies and their subsidiaries in relation to specified types of activity. We consider that the clause which Manchester Airport wished my right hon. Friend to add to the Bill for this purpose would have been outside its scope.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential benefits of extending the powers of local authorities in respect of airports they own. [114574]

  Mr. Mullin
  We largely agree with Manchester Airport's own assessment of the potential benefits of wider powers for local authority airport companies.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential use that local authorities might make in respect of airports they own of the new obligation on local authorities to promote economic and social well-being. [114575]
  340W
  Mr. Mullin
  Part I of the Local Government Bill gives local authorities broad new powers to do anything that contributes to the economic and social well-being of their areas. Subject to the terms of their Memoranda and Articles of Association these powers will also apply to local authority airport companies.

  Pensions (Compensation)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to ensure that the money paid to(a) Bus Employees Pension Trustees Ltd. to settle the action of the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust and (b) the National Bus Pension Fund Trust on 1 August 1999 is actually paid to pensioners. [114721]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 15 March 2000]: Responsibility for distribution of the settlement sum to pensioners rests entirely with the trustees of the two funds who are independent of the Government. We have however made clear to the trustees that we are very concerned about the time it is taking to resolve this matter. I met them in February to discuss progress and emphasised the need to take matters forward as swiftly as possible.

  I was pleased to be able to say on 7 February 2000, Official Report, columns 17–18W, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), that the trustees intend to make initial payments to some 8,000 older pensioners in March and April and are urgently investigating the feasibility of making initial payments to other pensioners.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many homes received home improvement grants in each of the years 1970–76. [114770]

  Mr. Mullin
  This information can be found in Table X.28, page 119, Chapter 10, Part III of the 1977 Housing Policy Green Paper (Cmnd. 6851). A copy of this Green Paper should be available in the House of Commons Library.

  Privacy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what guidance he has given to planning authorities about the protection of privacy for neighbours; [114921]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce measures to improve protection of privacy for neighbours. [114920]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: Under our plan-led system of development control, decisions on planning applications have to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. We advise in our Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 "General Policy and Principles" that good neighbourliness and fairness are among the yardsticks against which development proposals can be measured and that, for example, it might be material to consider the question of 'overlooking' or

  341W
  loss of privacy experienced by a particular resident. It is for local planning authorities to determine what considerations are material to any particular case.

  Planning conditions may also be used to protect privacy. The Department's Circular 11/95 suggests, for example, that a local planning authority may wish in appropriate circumstances to attach to a planning permission a condition preventing the use of the roof area of an extension to a dwellinghouse as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area without further permission from the authority. We are not proposing planning to introduce any further specific planning measures to improve the protection of privacy for neighbours, although we will continue to keep the matter under review.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional resources have been allocated within his Department to oversee the regulation of the water industry. [115012]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: Departmental resources for overseeing the regulation of the water industry have been kept broadly constant in real terms since the election. The Department's Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) regulates drinking water quality on behalf of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales. DWI expenditure in 1998–99 was £2.1 million, and is expected to be £2.2 million in 1999–2000, compared with £1.8 million in 1997–98.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what timetable he has agreed in respect of the 31 January announcement on consultation about the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and access to taxis. [115082]

  Mr. Hill
  We are reviewing the policy options and will consult with the taxi trade, disability organisations and local authorities on the final proposals, including the timetable for implementation in due course. An announcement with further details will be issued when the timing is clear.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will call for a report from London Underground on the continuing failings of the signalling system on the Jubilee Line, with particular reference to delays on the southbound line on the morning of Tuesday 14 March; and by what date this line is expected to be working efficiently and punctually. [115127]

  Mr. Hill
  I note my right hon. Friend's request for a report. This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd., who have informed me that they are doing all they can to identify and resolve recurring faults. This work has already started to pay off in terms of improved train reliability. Indeed, work is currently in hand, in particular on signalling, which should improve performance significantly over the next few months.
  342W
  I understand that on the morning of 14 March services were suspended for 25 minutes at the request of the Metropolitan police while they investigated a suspect vehicle parked outside Westminster station. There was no signal failure.

  Ministerial Conduct
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraphs 113 and 126 of the Ministerial Code, what steps he took to avoid conflicts of interest in respect of the renting of a flat from the RMT and other financial arrangements with the RMT. [115211]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been a tenant since 1970 of a flat owned by the RMT. Like about 200,000 other pre-1989 private sector tenancies, it is a regulated tenancy under the Rent Acts and is subject to 'fair rent' control. My right hon. Friend has written to the Parliamentary Commissioner explaining to her the reasons why he sees no need to declare the tenancy in the Register of Members' Interests, but for the avoidance of doubt, he has asked for her advice on the issue.

  Gatwick Express
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if there is an exemption order for the Class 460 trains to be introduced into service by Gatwick Express in respect of provisions of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998; and if he will make a statement. [115700]

  Mr. Hill
  As my predecessor explained in her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 167W, we are expecting to receive a number of exemption applications from train operating companies whose designs for new rail vehicles were well advanced prior to the 1998 Regulations coming into force.

  We have received an application from Gatwick Express relating to the new Class 460 trains they wish to introduce into service. The exemptions, have been discussed with our statutory advisers the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. An exemption Order relating to the exemption of these trains has been laid in Parliament today. Copies are available from the Library.

  The exemptions will not prevent disabled people from using the new trains. Indeed, we believe that their introduction will make a significant contribution to improving mobility opportunities for disabled people.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Photo Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee, pursuant to her answer of 13 March 2000,Official Report, column 14W, on photo passes, how many passes were held by temporary research assistants from overseas on 1 January. [115121]
  343W
  Mrs. Roe
  Up to 50 passes at any one time are issued each spring, summer and autumn term to temporary research assistants from overseas, who are sponsored by an institution of higher education.

DEFENCE

  HQ 2 Division
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the additional annual travelling and subsistence costs to the 2 Division will be consequent upon the relocation of the headquarters to Edinburgh; [108667]

  (2) what the staffing costs will be of the 2 Division following relocation of its headquarters to Edinburgh. [108666]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: The staffing costs of the new HQ 2 Division are expected to be of the order of £8 million per annum. The travel and subsistence costs of HQ 2 Division consequent on its relocation to Edinburgh have not been identified separately. The move will save in the region of £4 million per annum in HQ costs compared with HQs in both Edinburgh and York.

  Gulf War Illnesses
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel, in each of the armed services, who served in the Gulf War have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder; how many have been treated successfully; how many have left the services on grounds of ill health; and if he will make a statement. [113959]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not keep a central record of all medical diagnoses and subsequent treatment for currently serving personnel. Responsibility for the health of ex-Service personnel, if resident in the UK, lies with the NHS, which similarly does not keep a central record of all diagnoses and treatment. Neither does the NHS routinely communicate diagnostic or treatment information to the MOD. No arrangements are in place to monitor the health of ex-Service personnel living overseas. Therefore, the total number of British Service personnel who took part in the 1990–91 Gulf conflict who have been diagnosed as having post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), their Service and their subsequent treatment is not known.

  However, the MOD holds information on those Gulf Veterans who were referred by their Service Medical Officer or GP for assessment at the MOD's Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme (MAP). Since its establishment in October 1993, MAP had seen a total of 2,934 patients (up to 31 January 2000). Of these, 245 personnel (nine Royal Navy/Royal Marines, 213 Army, and 23 RAF) had a recorded diagnosis of PTSD confirmed by a consultant psychiatrist.

  As at 31 January 2000, of the 53,462 Service personnel who deployed to the Gulf, 846 personnel (189 Royal Navy/Royal Marines, 554 Army and 103 RAF) had been
  344W
  medically discharged. Of these, 37 (10 Royal Navy/Royal Marines, 24 Army and three RAF) had been medically discharged following a diagnosis of PTSD. Of the 37 cases, nine (two Royal Navy/Royal Marines and seven Army) are included in the figure of 245 who had been to MAP.

  Mines
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the reason for the withdrawal from service of(a) the L27 off-route mine and (b) the Mk 7 anti-tank mine; and if he will make a statement. [114362]

  Mr. Spellar
  (a) The L27 Anti-Tank Mine was withdrawn from service in 1997 because it was obsolete and no longer required for service use.

  (b) Two variants of Mk 7 Anti-Tank Mine were withdrawn from service over 10 years ago as they were obsolete and no longer required for service use. Two other variants remain in service.

  Army Personnel Statistics
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of Army personnel (i) deployed to and (ii) stationed in(a) Kosovo, (b) Bosnia and (c) Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [114256]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The information requested is given in the table:

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Former Yugoslavia

  3,315

  10,489

  —

  —

  —

  Kosovo

  —

  —

  0

  0

  4,235

  Bosnia

  —

  —

  5,468

  5,129

  4,136

  Northern Ireland

  15,608

  15,308

  15,022

  14,483

  13,517

  Notes:

  1. The figures given are at or around 1 April.

  2. Information held prior to 1997 only records deployments to the Former Yugoslavia.

  3. From 1997 onwards the figures for Kosovo and Bosnia are defined as the UK Land contributions to KFOR and SFOR respectively.

  4. The figures for Former Yugoslavia and Bosnia include UK personnel serving in multinational units, such as HQ SFOR.

  5. In addition to the personnel shown in the final column, there are a number of Territorial Army units based in Northern Ireland.

  Military Establishments
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military establishments within(a) Devon and (b) the Torbay constituency, indicating in each case the complement; what plans he has to change the (i) number and (ii) manning of such establishments; and if he will make a statement. [114553]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) manned establishments within(a) the county of Devon and (b) Torbay constituency are listed in the table. The personnel complement at each establishment is also given. The data reflect the status of the establishments in question as of 1 October 1999, which is the most recent date for which data are centrally held.

  345W

  Establishment

  Town

  Personnel

  (a)

  Royal Marine Bickleigh, 42 Commando Royal Marine

  Plymouth

  532

  Royal Marine Commando Training Centre, Lympstone

  Exmouth

  748

  Royal Marine Barracks Chivenor, Commando Logistics and 59 Independent Commando Squadron Royal Engineers

  Chivenor

  805

  Royal Marine Inslow, Amphibious Trials and Training Unit

  Bideford

  69

  Royal Marine Barracks Turnchapel, 539 Assault Squadron Royal Marines

  Turnchapel

  101

  Royal Marine Barracks Stonehouse, Headquarters 3 Commando Brigade

  Plymouth

  526

  Royal Marine Citadel, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery

  Plymouth

  548

  Britannia Royal Naval College

  Dartmouth

  233

  HM Naval Base Devonport

  Plymouth

  2,440

  HM Naval Base Devonport1

  Plymouth

  3,869

  HMS Cambridge

  Wembury, Plymouth

  193

  HMS Vivid

  Plymouth

  8

  HMS Drake, HM Naval Base

  Plymouth

  227

  RAF Chivenor

  Barnstaple

  54

  Dartmoor Training Areas and Oakhampton Training Camp

  Oakhampton

  32

  Fremlington Training Camp

  Barnstaple

  18

  Naval Bases and Supply Agency

  Exeter

  83

  Naval Bases and Supply Agency

  Ernestettle

  152

  Army Base Repair Organisation, Contract Repair Office

  Coypool, Marshmills

  2

  Defence Estates, Plymouth and South West Office

  Plymouth

  24

  Wyvern Barracks

  Exeter

  32

  Territorial Army Centre

  Millbay, Plymouth

  3

  Territorial Army Centre

  Derriford, Plymouth

  14

  Territorial Army Centre

  Paignton

  4

  Armed Forces Careers Office

  Exeter

  4

  Armed Forces Careers Office

  Plymouth

  30

  Army Careers Information Centre

  Exeter

  9

  Army Careers Information Office

  Barnstaple

  2

  Army Careers Information Office

  Torquay

  1

  Careers Information Office

  Exeter

  7

  Careers Information Office

  Plymouth

  11

  (b)

  Army Careers Information Office

  Torquay

  1

  Territorial Army Centre

  Paignton

  4

  1 Personnel on ships based at Devonport

  (i) There are currently no plans to change the number of establishments in Torbay constituency and the county of Devon.

  (ii) Current plans to change the manning of establishments in Torbay constituency and the county of Devon are set out as follows:
  The transfer of 13 Service posts and 36 civilian posts at naval establishments in Plymouth and Dartmouth to Flagship Training Ltd., as part of the continuing implementation of the Partnership Arrangement between the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency and Flagship. If agreed this will come into effect on 1 April 2000. This is subject to consultation.
  A study and investment appraisal are currently being carried out into the future of HMS Cambridge. As a result, changes in the status or manning of the establishment may be recommended.

  RN Vessels
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the long-term service plans for use of(a) HMS Sheffield, (b) HMS Coventry and (c) HMS Cardiff. [114768]

  Mr. Spellar
  HM ships Coventry, Sheffield and Cardiff will remain Fleet assets until replaced by new ships entering service. On current plans, HMS Coventry will be replaced by HMS St. Albans at the end of 2001. In due course HMS Sheffield will be replaced by the Future 346W
  Surface Combatant and HMS Cardiff by the first Type 45. Until replaced, they will be subject to a normal programme of operational tasking and upkeep.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the refit of HMS Nottingham is proceeding on time and within budget; when she will start post-refit trials; what is the date for her to return to active service; and if he will make a statement. [114802]

  Mr. Spellar
  The refit of HMS Nottingham is currently proceeding to programme and is within budget. Post-refit trials are planned to commence in the autumn and HMS Nottingham is expected to return to operational service early next year.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the mid and long-term service plans for the three Royal Navy aircraft carriers; and if he will make a statement. [114797]

  Mr. Spellar
  The three aircraft carriers, HMS Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal undertake a rolling programme of operations and maintenance, to ensure that two ships are normally available for tasking. All three vessels are planned to remain in service for at least the next decade. Under current plans, Invincible will be the first to pay off, after which Illustrious and Ark Royal will provide the capability until the next two new aircraft carriers enter service.
  347W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of the refit is for the HMS Lancaster; if it will be completed to time and cost; if she will be able to carry the Merlin helicopter; and if he will make a statement. [114763]

  Mr. Spellar
  Expenditure to date on HMS Lancaster's refit is about £10.5 million. There are some outstanding minor costs which are subject to negotiation with the refit contractor. It is expected that the final cost will be within the original budget. The refit contract was completed earlier than originally planned, and HMS Lancaster will shortly return to operational service. She is now capable of carrying the Merlin helicopter.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and where HMS Norfolk will have her next refit; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [114771]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Norfolk's next refit is planned to start in 2005 and to form part of MOD's competitive shipwork programme. Both the venue and the cost of the refit will therefore depend on the outcome of the planned competition.

  Bloody Sunday
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the soldiers on duty in Londonderry on 30 January 1972 suffered a bullet wound to his foot. [114901]

  Mr. Spellar
  While on duty in Londonderry on 30 January 1972, a soldier suffered a bullet would to his foot as a result of the accidental discharge of his weapon. He has made a statement to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, but his identity cannot be revealed under the Tribunal's ruling on anonymity.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of housing benefit paid by each local authority in respect of local authority rented housing in the years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–2000; and if he will indicate the average number of recipients for each authority. [113843]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the Library.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 806W, if he will list the local authorities that did not volunteer to participate in (a) the Area Benefit Review of Housing Benefit and (b) the last Housing Benefit Review. [115210]

  Angela Eagle
  In the summer of 1997 all local authorities in Great Britain were invited to volunteer to participate in the second National Housing Benefit Review for which a representative sample of authorities was needed.
  348W
  In the spring of 1999 the Department invited all local authorities in Great Britain to participate in a project to incorporate Housing Benefit paid with Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based) into the Benefits Agency's Area Benefit Review programme.

  In seeking volunteers for both exercises, the Department made clear to local authorities the level of commitment required. In the case of the national review, this involved diverting anti-fraud resources from mainstream anti-fraud activity for a period of approximately two months. In the case of the area benefit review, a continuing requirement to divert benefit processing resources from mainstream activity and to meet tight deadlines was involved. It was left to local authorities whether they would be able to make this commitment without jeopardising anti-fraud work or service delivery.

  The list of local authorities who did not volunteer to participate in the second National Housing Benefit Review or the Area Benefit Review project has been placed in the Library.

  Fraud Officer (North Essex)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Benefits Agency Fraud officer for North Essex will be contactable by e-mail; and if he will make a statement. [114978]

  Mr. Rooker
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 16 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when the Benefits Agency Fraud officer for North Sussex will be contactable by e-mail; and if he will make a statement. We understand that there was an error in the question and that it should have read North Essex not Sussex.
  Until recently we did not have in place a secure gateway from our internal e-mail system to the Internet to allow safe communication with those outside our system. This is now in place and instructions have just been issued to staff for its use. Over the coming months the e-mail addresses of BA District and other offices will be published on the DSS Web site. A timetable has not yet been finalised. A number of constraints remain to be resolved in terms of confirming identify and ensuring security before restricted or personal information can be sent by e-mail but these are being addressed.
  We have not yet, however, put in place the structures within offices to deal with a high volumes of enquiries but an arrangement can be made for specific cases and I understand that this option has been made available to you by the Fraud Sector manager. I hope this is helpful.

  IR35
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the impact on the social security budget of the introduction of IR35. [114498]

  Mr. Rooker
  The introduction of IR35 is estimated to yield an additional £220 million per year in National Insurance contributions in a full year. Although the increased contributions are likely to lead to higher future National Insurance benefit expenditure, it is not possible to quantify this increase.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2000,Official Report, column 53W, (a) what types of fraud the new scans of national insurance numbers will identify that previous scans have not been able to, (b) what estimate he has made of how many fraudulent numbers there will be for each type of anticipated fraud and (c) how many numbers on the Departmental Central Index will be scanned using the new technique. [115204]

  Mr. Rooker
  The scans of National Insurance numbers are designed primarily to identify anomalies and duplicate records, rather than specific areas of fraud.

  It is not possible to estimate how many cases of fraud will be identified by scans, or the type of fraud involved.

  Each scan involves checking the whole of the Departmental Central Index database, some 81 million accounts.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward proposals to provide compensation to those in receipt of a state pension in Scotland for the recent increases in water charges; and if he will make a statement. [114679]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: No. Social Security benefits are paid at a set UK rate. Account is taken of a wide range of goods and services, including water charges across the UK.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Sure Start
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent progress has been made on the Sure Start projects introduced to date. [113174]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  Of the 60 Sure Start trailblazer programmes that were announced in January 1999, 53 have now received approval and are now starting to help young children and their families. The remaining seven will follow shortly. In November 1999, we launched the second wave of Sure Start by inviting a further 69 areas to start work to develop local programmes. All of these are now working on drawing up outline plans. This brings the number of Sure Start programmes so far announced to 129.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of poor children will be covered by the Sure Start programme when the roll-out is complete. [113783]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  Sure Start are committed to establishing 250 local Sure Start programmes in areas of disadvantage by March 2002. On the basis of the 60 Sure Start trailblazers now in place, it is estimated that when fully rolled-out the programme will cover 18 per cent. of children under four in England living in households in receipt of income-based benefits.

  "Computers Within Reach"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the qualifying conditions will be for retired people to acquire computers under the computers within reach scheme for the purposes of lifelong learning. [114115]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are making £15 million available for a scheme, "Computers Within Reach", to evaluate arrangements for those who cannot afford new computers to acquire reconditioned computers for use in the home for the purpose of improving their employment prospects, for lifelong learning or for their children's homework. Eligible recipients for computer packages under this scheme are expected to be those in receipt of a range of benefits including Jobseekers Allowance, Income Support, Incapacity Benefit and Disability Living Allowance, and may include those for whom state pensions are the main source of income.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for the period 2 May 1997 to 29 February 2000 what was(a) the number of occasions on which couriers were used to distribute news releases from his Department and (b) the total cost of using couriers to distribute news releases. [113969]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: Prior to April 1998, the DfEE distributed hard copies of press notices via the Central Office of Information delivery service. After April 1998, all press releases have been distributed electronically via the News Distribution Service managed by the Central Office of Information. Couriers are not used purely to distribute press releases. It is however impossible to separate the times when couriers were used as the only practical means of sending out sensitive material which may have had press releases attached.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) national, (b) regional and (c) local newspapers and media bodies to which his Department sent news releases during the period 2 May 1997 to 29 February 2000. [113995]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: Due to the sheer numbers of media who will have received DfEE press releases, it is not possible to provide a list. Press releases are available to all the media via the News Distribution Service, managed by the Central Office of Information, and the internet. Targeted distribution will rely on the subject and content of the specific press release.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress is being made towards a national roll out of the New Deal for Disabled People. [114688]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: We expect to make an announcement very shortly.

TREASURY

  Farmers (Compensation)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on(a) state aid for pig farmers and (b) monetary compensation to farmers for currency fluctuations; [114683]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on compensation for farmers for currency adjustments; and if he will make a statement. [114947]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Agriculture Minister discuss many issues. All relevant issues receive continuous close attention.

  London (Migration)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates for migration from London to the south-east of England over the next five years. [114428]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tim Loughton, dated 17 March 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on estimates for migration from London to the South East of England over the next five years.
  Projections for migration from London to the South East of England are shown in the following table for 2001 and 2006. Projection of migration are not available for the intervening years, but are consistent with those shown.

  Projected migration from London to the Government Office for the South East Region 2001, 2006

  Thousand

  2001

  2006

  Inflow

  82.3

  82.8

  Outflow

  54.1

  54.8

  Net

  28.2

  28.0

  Athletic Events (Funding)
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions his Department has had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about capital funding for facilities for major athletics events; and if he will make a statement. [113946]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: No recent discussions have taken place between the Treasury and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about capital funding for facilities for major athletics events. Any additional needs will be considered as part of the current spending review.

  Investing in Britain Fund
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross domestic product was spent on the Investing in Britain Fund in the financial years(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; what estimate he has made for (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [114705]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 15 March 2000]: The Investing in Britain Fund provides for the renewal and modernisation of the UK's public sector capital stock. Figures for capital investment as a percentage of gross domestic product are shown in Table B6, Annexe 2 of the pre-Budget Report (Cm 4479). These figures will be updated in the forthcoming Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Dot.com Companies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the economic implications of the entry of dot.com companies into the FTSE 100. [114997]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Changes in the composition of the FTSE 100 reflect market valuations of UK companies.

  As the Prime Minister explained in a recent speech, the challenges and opportunities presented by the growth of e-commerce apply to all businesses, in all sectors of the economy. The Government recognise the importance of these developments and have set a target of making the UK the best place for e-commerce in the world by 2002.

  Financial Markets (Local Authority Access)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to allow local authorities greater access to the financial markets. [114911]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are currently no plans to allow local authorities greater access to the financial markets.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of ECOFIN on 13 March. [115740]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Paymaster General attended the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers.

  The Commission presented its action plan for improving financial management and procedures. The Council recommended granting discharge in respect of the 1998 financial year.

  The Stability programmes of Luxembourg, France and Portugal were agreed.

  The Presidency announced that the ECOFIN Ministers would he invited to attend the Lisbon European Council on employment, economic reform and social cohesion. ECOFIN agreed a report to the Lisbon Council which emphasised the importance of sustainable growth, macroeconomic stability and economic reform in promoting a dynamic, innovative and socially inclusive European economy.
  353W
  The Commission presented their report on the taxation of aviation fuel.

HEALTH

  Neurosurgical Consultants
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of neurosurgiacal consultants in each NHS region in each of the last 10 years. [110932]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest available information is shown in the tables.

  Neurosurgical consultants by regional health authority 1988–1995 England at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Northern

  10

  10

  10

  0

  10

  0

  10

  10

  Yorkshire

  10

  10

  0

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Trent

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  East Anglia

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  Oxford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  0

  NW Thames

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  10

  NE Thames

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  SE Thames

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  0

  SW Thames

  0

  10

  10

  10

  0

  10

  10

  10

  Mersey

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  North Western

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  South Western

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Wessex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  England

  100

  90

  100

  100

  100

  100

  110

  110

  Notes:

  1.Figures rounded to nearest 10

  2. 'O' denotes five or less

  3. Regional totals may not equal England total due to rounding and staff working in more than one region

  4.The regional structure changed on 1 April 1996, when the regional health authorities were replaced by regional offices. For September 1995, data are available in either format.

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Administration Expenditure
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the change in central administration spending by his Department in each of the last two years; what is the budgeted change for this year and 2001. [106771]

  Ms Stuart
  The change in central administration spending by my Department was a reduction of 7.9 per cent. in real terms in 1997–98, from the previous year, and a further 9.9 per cent. reduction in 1998–99. The budgeted changes are a 8.7 per cent. real terms increase for 1999–2000, and a real terms reduction of 6.1 per cent. in 2001–01.

  The budgeted administration expenditure in 1999–2000 includes an amount towards the set up costs of the new Food Standards Agency. Excluding this amount, the changes in real terms are:
  354W

  Neurosurgical consultants by regional office 1995–1998 England at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Northern and Yorkshire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Trent

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Anglia and Oxford

  10

  10

  10

  10

  North Thames

  20

  20

  20

  20

  South Thames

  10

  10

  10

  20

  North West

  20

  20

  20

  20

  South and West

  10

  20

  20

  20

  West Midlands

  10

  10

  10

  10

  England

  110

  120

  130

  130

  Year

  Percentage change

  1997–98

  -7.9

  1998–99

  -9.9

  1999–2000

  +3.9

  2000–01

  -1.7

  Capitation Targets
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amount by which each health authority in England is expected to be above or below its capitation target in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01, expressed (i) in cash terms and (ii) as a percentage of each authority's expenditure. [112037]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  355W

  1999–2000 distance from target

  2000–01 distance from target

  Health authority

  £000

  Percentage

  £000

  Percentage

  Avon

  -6,924

  -1.17

  -7,351

  -1.15

  Barking and Havering

  -1,934

  -0.75

  2,573

  0.94

  Barnet

  4,594

  2.25

  447

  0.20

  Barnsley

  -4,786

  -2.98

  -5,379

  -3.11

  Bedfordshire

  -12,427

  -3.82

  -13,980

  -3.98

  Berkshire

  -15,619

  -3.50

  -15,847

  -3.23

  Bexley and Greenwich

  14,573

  5.31

  18,097

  6.15

  Birmingham

  2,656

  0.39

  4,390

  0.60

  Bradford

  -5,542

  -1.77

  -3,853

  -1.13

  Brent and Harrow

  9,296

  3.09

  7,051

  2.15

  Bromley

  -498

  -0.27

  214

  0.11

  Buckinghamshire

  -9,343

  -2.48

  -11,999

  -2.92

  Bury and Rochdale

  -3,241

  -1.29

  -1,049

  -0.39

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  1,619

  0.44

  -671

  -0.17

  Cambridge and Huntingdon1

  -2,663

  -1.13

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire1

  —

  —

  -10,687

  -2.41

  Camden and Islington

  6,949

  2.22

  6,701

  1.95

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  6,454

  2.08

  5,506

  1.65

  County Durham

  -9,737

  -2.31

  -8,724

  -1.93

  Coventry

  -7,182

  -3.45

  -6,172

  -2.76

  Croydon

  -2,556

  -1.25

  -2,517

  -1.14

  Doncaster

  -276

  -0.14

  -427

  -0.20

  Dorset

  9,771

  2.24

  9,035

  1.93

  Dudley

  -1,840

  -1.00

  -3,044

  -1.52

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  -2,835

  -0.59

  -133

  -0.03

  East and North Hertfordshire

  -2,118

  -0.73

  -4,059

  -1.28

  East Kent

  7,108

  1.83

  11,031

  2.67

  East Lancashire

  -2,389

  -0.68

  -2,822

  -0.74

  East London and The City

  -24,117

  -4.69

  -20,945

  -3.77

  East Norfolk1

  3,198

  0.85

  —

  —

  East Riding

  -2,397

  -0.66

  -159

  -0.04

  East Surrey

  5,013

  2.10

  5,777

  2.25

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  10,634

  2.15

  13,072

  2.48

  Enfield and Haringey

  1,731

  0.54

  1,464

  0.42

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  -1,954

  -0.76

  -2,889

  -1.05

  Gloucestershire

  12,408

  3.85

  10,564

  3.05

  Herefordshire

  61

  0.06

  -319

  -0.30

  Hillingdon

  658

  0.43

  -963

  -0.58

  Isle of Wight

  6,326

  7.35

  6,603

  7.16

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  -27,917

  -8.88

  -27,876

  -8.14

  Kingston and Richmond

  4,593

  2.25

  5,795

  2.55

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  -3,567

  -0.62

  12,253

  2.00

  Leeds

  1,203

  0.26

  3,114

  0.62

  Leicestershire

  -13,466

  -2.54

  -16,280

  -2.83

  Lincolnshire

  2,528

  0.64

  -3,733

  -0.88

  Liverpool

  7,149

  2.09

  6,603

  1.81

  Manchester

  7,758

  2.28

  7,498

  2.06

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  9,553

  2.31

  8,245

  1.88

  Morecambe Bay

  8,671

  4.40

  7,291

  3.43

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  1,752

  0.53

  3,206

  0.91

  Norfolk1

  —

  —

  186

  0.04

  North and East Devon

  5,434

  1.84

  4,395

  1.38

  North and Mid Hampshire

  3,913

  1.36

  1,612

  0.52

  North Cheshire

  3,561

  1.80

  2,200

  1.04

  North Cumbria

  111

  0.06

  434

  0.20

  North Derbyshire

  -575

  -0.25

  -1,090

  -0.44

  North Essex

  -3,480

  -0.69

  -436

  -0.08

  North Nottinghamshire

  -2,849

  -1.19

  -5,763

  -2.21

  North Staffordshire

  -8,156

  -2.62

  --5,796

  -1.74

  North West Anglia1

  -4,748

  -1.86

  —

  —

  North West Lancashire

  -1,356

  -0.42

  54

  0.02

  North Yorkshire

  -1,736

  -0.40

  -2,462

  -0.53

  Northamptonshire

  4,847

  1.51

  3,079

  0.89

  Northumberland

  -325

  -0.17

  -661

  -0.31

  Nottingham

  -10,151

  -2.53

  -10,245

  -2.39

  Oxfordshire

  -9,569

  -2.84

  -8,166

  -2.24

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  -917

  -0.28

  60

  0.02

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  13,384

  4.72

  11,902

  3.89

  Rotherham

  -1,079

  -0.67

  -1,970

  -1.14

  Salford and Trafford

  6,440

  2.13

  5,725

  1.75

  Sandwell

  -2,795

  -1.34

  -2,060

  -0.93

  Sefton

  1,987

  1.05

  5,688

  2.82

  Sheffield

  5,419

  1.50

  4,686

  1.21

  356W

  357W

  1999–2000 distance from target

  2000–01 distance from target

  Health authority

  £000

  Percentage

  £000

  Percentage

  Shropshire

  -905

  -0.36

  -3,616

  -1.34

  Solihull

  1,598

  1.32

  496

  0.38

  Somerset

  2,866

  1.00

  1,843

  0.59

  South and West Devon

  6,989

  1.86

  5,998

  1.48

  South Cheshire

  2,168

  0.54

  4,007

  0.93

  South Derbyshire

  -7,068

  -2.03

  -5,958

  -1.59

  South Essex

  -14,809

  -3.42

  -7,240

  -1.57

  South Humber

  6,625

  3.44

  4,180

  2.01

  South Lancashire

  4,328

  2.38

  4,249

  2.14

  South Staffordshire

  2,721

  0.85

  -508

  -0.15

  Southampton and South West Hamptonshire

  312

  0.10

  178

  0.05

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  -1,013

  -0.43

  -2,173

  -0.85

  Stockport

  802

  0.46

  926

  0.49

  Suffolk

  6,452

  1.65

  3,950

  0.94

  Sunderland

  -1,530

  -0.76

  -2,255

  -1.04

  Tees

  -3,681

  -0.99

  -4,624

  -1.15

  Wakefield

  771

  0.37

  1,031

  0.46

  Walsall

  -2,093

  -1.27

  -2,826

  -1.58

  Warwickshire

  7,616

  2.66

  5,177

  1.67

  West Hertfordshire

  4,980

  1.59

  1,788

  0.53

  West Kent

  3,636

  0.65

  5.974

  0.99

  West Pennine

  -4,898

  -1.62

  -5,594

  -1.72

  West Surrey

  8,531

  2.35

  10,150

  2.65

  West Sussex

  -3,555

  -0.76

  -2,609

  -0.52

  Wigan and Bolton

  -12,069

  -3.13

  -12,351

  -2.98

  Wiltshire

  5,699

  1.68

  7,725

  2.12

  Wirral

  4,365

  2

  7,386

  3.14

  Wolverhampton

  -2,351

  -1.45

  -3,311

  -1.89

  Worcestershire

  5,228

  1.75

  1,981

  0.62

  1 On 1 April 1999 Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority, East Norfolk Health Authority and North West Anglia Health Authority merged to form Cambridgeshire Health Authority and Norfolk Health Authority

  Telecommunication Masts
  Mr, Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish the Stewart report on mobile phone masts; and if he will make a statement. [114710]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 300W.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Bloody Sunday Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will offer immunity from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act 1989 to enable former employees of military intelligence to testify anonymously before the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. [114645]

  The Solicitor-General
  On 22 February 1999, the then Attorney-General wrote to Lord Saville of Newdigate setting out the terms of an undertaking he gave in relation to witnesses appearing before the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. The terms of the undertaking were as follows:"An undertaking in respect of any person who provides evidence to the Inquiry, that no evidence he or she may give before the Inquiry relating to the events of Sunday 30 January 1972, whether orally or by written statement, nor any written statement made preparatory to giving evidence, nor any document produced by that person to the Inquiry, will be used to the prejudice of that person in any criminal proceedings (or for the purpose of investigating or deciding whether to bring such proceedings) except proceedings where he or she is charged with having given
  358W
  false evidence in the course of this Inquiry or with having conspired with, aided, abetted, counsel procured, suborned or incited any other person to do so."

  The Attorney General concluded his letter by stating that
  "although the undertaking is cast in terms which preclude the use of evidence given by a witness as the basis for a criminal investigation into the conduct of that witness, this does not amount to any form of immunity. If the question of granting immunity to any individual were to arise, I would need to consider that on an individual case basis."

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  GM Seeds
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to add genetically modified seed to the National Seed Register; and if he will make a statement. [111779]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 13 March 2000,Official Report, column 47W.

  GMO Field Trials
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to prevent the destruction of GMO field trials. [112255]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 March 2000]: The Government deplore vandalism of GM crop trials. My Department has liaised with other Departments, the police and the industry to alert them to the risk of vandalism, so that measures can be taken to prevent it.

  Hedgerows
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received in respect of the two metre rule in relation to hedgerows and grassy banks bordering arable land eligible for crop payments. [114112]

  Ms Quin
  Representations concerning the two metre maximum width of field margins for inclusion in claims for arable area aid under the Integrated Administration and Control System have been received from the Allerton Research and Educational Trust, the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Country Landowners Association, the Countryside Agency, English Nature, Essex Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, the National Farmers Union, the National Trust, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Somerset Wildlife Trust, the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, the Tenant Farmers Association, Wildlife and Countryside Link and from a number of other organisations, private individuals and companies.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the length of hedgerows in the UK which are more than two metres wide and which border land affected by CAP arable crop payments. [114137]

  Ms Quin
  No such estimates have been made. However, information is available on the percentage of all fields inspected by MAFF in 1999 on which arable area payments were made on the basis of full Ordnance Survey areas where the field margins were found to be wider than two metres. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 798W.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will refer the issue of arable crop payments affecting hedgerows and grassy banks to the Green Ministers' Committee; [114114]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with MAFF in respect of the impact of the two metre rule in relation to the eligibility of hedges and grassy banks for arable crop payments; and if he will make a statement. [114139]

  Ms Quin
  It is not proposed to refer the issue referred to by my hon. Friend to the Green Ministers' Committee, concerning as it does the implementation of EU legislation and advise from the European Commission and the European Court of Auditors. MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are, however, in close touch on this issue.

  European Commission Payments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he(a) has recently held and (b) plans to hold with the European Commission in respect of environmental integration and arable land crop payments. [114113]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister raised the environmental consequences of field margin rules for arable area payment claims at meetings with the European Commission on 1 February and 9 March. The need for 360W
  any future meetings on this subject will depend upon the outcome of current discussions between my officials and the Commission.

  Sterling
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is proposing to reduce the impact of the strong pound on British farmers. [114337]

  Ms Quin
  Over the last three years we have paid nearly £400 million in agrimonetary compensation. We plan to pay a further £88 million this year and £44 million next year in agrimonetary compensation to beef, sheep and arable farmers.

  Any additional optional agrimonetary compensation will have to be considered against other calls on public expenditure.

  Beef Subsidies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was paid in subsidies to beef farmers in the United Kingdom in 1999. [114249]

  Ms Quin
  Payments by the Exchequer in support of the beef industry for the financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are outlined in the table. It should be noted that not all subsidies are paid directly to farmers. Figures for 1999–2000 are estimates.

  April/March (financial years)

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  339.5

  219.9

  Beef Special Premium Scheme

  294.0

  220.1

  Beef Deseasonalisation Scheme

  5.6

  3.0

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances: cattle

  70.3

  56.5

  Internal market measures

  2.0

  2.4

  Intervention purchases/sales

  -29.3

  -85.8

  Intervention storage costs

  24.2

  9.9

  Export refunds

  -1.9

  0.6

  Over Thirty Month scheme purchases

  263.8

  248.4

  Over Thirty Month Scheme slaughter, disposal costs etc.

  116.2

  127.7

  Calf Processing Aid Scheme

  51.0

  10.0

  Selective cull

  18.9

  2.2

  Other measures

  5.2

  0.5

  Total

  1,159.5

  815.4

  Red Tape
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the Government's response to Recommendation 4 of his Red Tape Working Group on the Meat Industry, whether he intends unannounced visits to replace existing procedures or be additional to them. [113884]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: A system of unannounced inspections is seen as integral to the introduction of a full Hazard Analysis Critical Control and Point approach as recommended by the Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group. They would therefore replace the current inspection system, but amendments to existing EU legislation are required before HACCP could be introduced. However, the Working Group recommended the earliest possible introduction of a regime of

  361W
  unannounced, thorough, targeted inspections of plants. We are currently considering the costs and benefits of adding such a system to the existing controls.

  GM Produce
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with negotiating the voluntary agreement with industry on labelling of genetically modified produce. [113765]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: All genetically modified food sold in the UK is required by law to be labelled. In the UK these requirements apply to foods sold in restaurants as well as in retail premises. We are working within Europe to agree a definition of "GM free" in a labelling claim and to achieve a labelling regime for animal feed in relation to GM ingredients.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has commissioned on the safety for human consumption of meat from animals fed on GM crops. [113767]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: None, as there is no evidence that meat from animals fed on GM crops is in any way distinguishable from animals fed on conventional feedingstuffs.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce legislation to give effect to EC Regulations 49/2000 and 50/2000 concerning the labelling of genetically modified foods. [115741]

  Ms Quin
  The Genetically Modified and Novel Foods (Labelling) (England) Regulations 2000, which will come into force on 10 April, have today been laid before Parliament. These Regulations make provision in England for the enforcement of two new European labelling Regulations for GM foods, which will take effect automatically in all member states on 10 April, as well as consolidating all earlier GM labelling provisions.

  The first of these, EC Regulation 49/2000, amends Regulation 1139/98 on the labelling of foods containing GM soya and maize, to extend the scope of the requirements to include foods for catering establishments, and to establish a 1 per cent. de minimis threshold for the adventitious contamination of non-GM material, below which GM labelling will not be required. The second, EC Regulation 50/2000, will require for the first time, the labelling of foods and food ingredients which contain GM additives and flavourings.

  The Government are determined that consumers should be able to make informed choices about whether or not to eat genetically modified foods, and these new Regulations will strengthen further the arrangements already in place for this purpose.

  A letter is being sent today to interested parties advising them of the content of the Regulations and enclosing a copy of the text. A Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Regulations has been prepared and placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Agriculture (Greater London)
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total hectarage of(a) registered and (b) non-registered land under agricultural management within Greater London. [114556]

  Ms Quin
  The total area on agricultural holdings in Greater London was 13,322 hectares at June 1999. This includes estimates for minor holdings. Information is not available on unregistered holdings.

  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) agricultural land holdings and (b) other agricultural practices there are within Greater London. [114557]

  Ms Quin
  The number of agricultural holdings in Greater London was 479 at June 1999. This includes estimates for minor holdings. Information on other agricultural practices is not available.

  Primates
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many primates have arrived in the UK via Dover port in(a) October 1999, (b) November 1999, (c) December 1999 and (d) January 2000; and of those how many were found to be (i) ill and (ii) dead. [114419]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: According to our records, 124 primates arrived in the UK via Dover port in October 1999, 60 arrived in November 1999, 44 in December 1999 and 124 in January 2000. These were inspected by a veterinary surgeon at the quarantine premises which was their destination and were found to have travelled well with no signs of ill health or disease.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  International Price Comparisons
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response the Government have made to the recent OECD report on international price comparisons. [114079]

  Dr. Howells
  OECD statistics on purchasing power parity are a regular statistical publication. No official response is made regarding such routine statistical publications by the OECD.

  Gas-powered Vehicles
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the development and promotion of liquefied petroleum gas-powered vehicles in rural areas. [113933]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The Department's Foresight Vehicle programme provides funding of up to 50 per cent. for the development of innovative technologies for future vehicles. This includes developments of systems for hybrid electric and alternatively fuelled vehicles including LPG. Bi-fuelled LPG vehicles are, however, already available for purchase.
  363W
  The Department is also jointly responsible with DETR for the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force, which aims to promote the production, marketing, purchasing and use of cleaner vehicles and fuels in all areas, both rural and urban.

  A sub group of the Task Force is specifically looking at the role and cost effectiveness of alternatively fuelled vehicles and their fuels. It is drawing up recommendations to help develop the necessary infrastructure needed for these fuels, and will be reporting its conclusions to the Task Force next month.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors the Low Pay Commission takes into account when setting the accommodation offset for the national minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [114789]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Before making their recommendation on the level of the accommodation offset for the introduction of the national minimum wage, the Low Pay Commission undertook an extensive and wide ranging consultation exercise, which included written and oral evidence from organisations and individuals in various sectors that provide accommodation for workers. They also examined current charges in the agricultural and hotel industries and took account of the rates set in the former Wages Councils. In view of the representations received during the consultation exercise on the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations, the Government asked the Commission to look again at this issue in February 1999. The Commission also considered the offset for their second report, which monitored the impact of the minimum wage since its introduction in April.

  The Government believe that workers should be paid a reasonable wage and not have to rely on benefits in kind. The accommodation offset figure is not intended to be a commercial valuation but is designed to protect workers from unreasonable accommodation charges, while recognising that these arrangements are of benefit to worker and employer.

  The Commission has recommended that the offset should be retained at its present level and considered again when the national minimum wage is next reviewed. The Government accepted this recommendation.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the accommodation offset for the national minimum wage has been calculated; and if he will make a statement. [114790]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The maximum amount which can be offset against national minimum wage pay by employers who provide accommodation is £19.95 a week. This is to be calculated at either £2.85 per day or 50p an hour, up to the maximum. The two different methods of calculation ensure that part-time workers do not lose out.

  The maximum amount reflects the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission in their first report in June 1998. The amount is not meant to reflect the commercial value of the accommodation provided. The accommodation offset was considered further in the Commission's special report on the offset produced in March 1999, which
  364W
  concluded that it was set at the right level. The most recent Commission report, published in February 2000, recommended that
  "the accommodation deductor should be retained at its present rate and its level considered again when the national minimum wage is reviewed."

  The Government accepted this recommendation.

  Refurbished Computers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is his policy to make available secondhand refurbished computers to socially excluded groups; and if he will make a statement. [114999]

  Dr. Howells
  The majority of the Department's IT equipment is owned by UNITAS (a consortium of ICL and CMG) who provide the equipment under a private finance arrangement. UNITAS are responsible for the disposal of this equipment.

  In respect of other equipment that remains the Department's property, contracts are in place for recycling that which is surplus to requirements. Under these contracts, London Computer Auctions and Recycle IT refurbish such equipment, where suitable, and sell it to schools at a low cost.

  Ice Cream Industry
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will be in a position to make a statement about the outcome of the Office of Fair Trading consultation with the impulse ice cream industry regarding Walls distribution. [114794]

  Mr. Byers
  As announced in my press notice of 28 January, I have invited views from the industry to be put to the Director General by the end of the month. He will advise me by Easter on the remedy and I will make an announcement once I have considered his advice.

  Company Law Review
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that personal shareholders are represented on the consultative committee when carrying out its review into company law; and if he will make a statement. [115029]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: The company law review is designed to take into account as many views and interests as possible. It is an open and consultative exercise, and the consultative committee is an important aspect of that process. While the consultative committee already represents a very wide range of interests, I am considering whether it adequately reflects the views of personal shareholders, and will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what involvement David McLachlan had in the decision of the ECGD to support the(a) nuclear power project in Ain Shan China Phase III, (b) coal handling export terminal in Tianjin, China, (c) coal-fired power station in Manjing, Malaysia and (d) line of credit for the Korean Development Bank. [114786]
  365W
  Mr. Caborn
  In his capacity as a banking member of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council, Mr. David McLachlan may be asked for his advice from time to time on cases which are being put forward for underwriting decisions. Such advice is sought only from a Council Member who has no direct business interest in the relevant transaction.

  Of the four cases mentioned, Mr. McLachlan's advice was sought only in respect of ECGD's risk analysis and recommendation regarding the Korean Development Bank. The line of credit was subsequently underwritten by ECGD.

  A3XX Super-Jumbo Project
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, following his decision to aid the A3XX Super-Jumbo project, he will publish(a) an independent investment appraisal of the project and (b) a report on his efforts to finance the project on a fully commercial basis. [115137]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department has received independent advice on the financial implications of the application from BAE SYSTEMS for launch investment for the A3XX from PricewaterhouseCoopers. The specific terms of the investment are commercially confidential. I am satisfied that the basis of the Government's participation in this risk sharing partnership is fully justified by the benefits it will secure for the UK economy, by ensuring substantial UK involvement in the design and production of this advanced aircraft. Supporting innovation and enterprise, improving productivity and developing skills is the only way forward in the knowledge-based economy of the 21st Century.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visas for settlement from family members of persons who had held exceptional leave to remain in the UK for less than four years were(a) received and (b) granted in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [114567]

  Mr. Vaz
  Entry clearance staff overseas do not routinely record for statistical purposes information on the immigration status of those sponsoring applications for settlement in the United Kingdom. The information is therefore not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  South-east Asia Department
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the responsibilities of the Defence Sales Desk Officer in the South East Asia Department. [114729]

  Mr. Battle
  FCO desk officers, including those in the South-East Asia Department, among other duties scrutinise and advise licence applications for the countries they cover against the UK national criteria and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  Mr. Vassily Kononov
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Latvia regarding the imprisonment of Mr. Vassily Kononov; and if he will make a statement. [114793]

  Mr. Vaz
  None. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 289W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford to the Minister for Trade of 13 October 1999 that was transferred to the Foreign Office on 21 October 1999 concerning the issues raised by Ms P. Jones of Chelmsford. [115209]

  Mr. Hain
  We will reply to the hon. Member's letter of 13 October 1999 to the Minister for Trade, enclosing a postcard from his constituent Ms P. Jones about the information contained in the Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, as soon as possible. We regret the delay in issuing a response, which was the result of an administrative oversight. Since publication of the Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls on 3 November 1999, we have received over 1,500 letters from MPs and members of the public on the same subject.

  Paid Secondees
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those United Kingdom embassies overseas where embassy staff include paid secondees from commercial companies; and for each secondee, if he will list the(a) seconding company and (b) whether the secondee is paid by (i) the seconding company, (ii) the embassy or (iii) another source. [114815]

  Mr. Hain
  In line with HMG's policy of increased interchange with the private sector, as part of the modernising government agenda, there are eight private sector secondees at posts overseas, in Japan, Hong Kong, Angola, Thailand and the USA. In addition, there is one secondee with a roving remit for South-East Asia.

  The secondees are bound by Diplomatic Service regulations relating to conduct and discipline, and answerable to the head of the diplomatic post at which they are serving.

  I will ask the companies concerned for their agreement to their details being provided to the hon. Member and will write to him. I will place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House. As regards payment, the most common arrangement is for the secondee to continue to be paid by his or her employer, which in turn seeks reimbursement from the FCO. However, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 March 2000, Official Report, column 44W, to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), in which I stated that BNFL meet the full costs associated with the appointment of the Atomic Energy Counsellor in Tokyo.

  British Embassies
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British embassies the Minister for Europe has visited during his period of office. [115341]

  Mr. Vaz
  Twelve.

  Land Purchases
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions affect the purchase of(a)agricultural and (b) industrial land by (i) citizens and (ii) companies in (A) EU member states and (B) candidates for membership. [113146]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the terms of the EC Treaty, there are no restrictions affecting the purchase of agricultural and industrial land by citizens and companies in EU member states. As regards the candidate countries, there is currently a range of restrictions on the purchase by EU citizens and companies of agricultural and industrial land in the different states. Compliance with the Single Market acquis means that these restrictions should be removed on accession. The EU will respond later in the negotiation process to applicants' requests for transition periods, to allow the retention of some restrictions for a limited period after accession.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what rules govern civil servants accompanying Ministers to overseas fund-raising functions; [115206]

  (2) what rules govern civil servants accompanying Ministers to party political functions. [115208]

  Mr. Stringer
  Paragraph 60 of the Ministerial Code makes it clear that Ministers should not ask civil servants to attend, still less take part in, Party Conferences or meetings of policy or subject groups of any of the parliamentary parties. It is an established principle in the public service that civil servants in their official capacity should not accept invitations to conferences convened by, or under the aegis of, party political organisations. The situation is, of course, different when Ministers require officials to be in attendance at party political events in order to enable the Minister to carry out urgent departmental business. This guidance applies to events within the United Kingdom and overseas.

PRIME MINISTER

  Task Forces
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister which of the task forces created since he came into office have had their lifetime extended beyond the original envisaged wind-up date, indicating the reason for such extensions. [113303]

  The Prime Minister
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. A full list of Task Forces established since the General Election was placed in the 368W
  Library on 9 December 1999. The list includes details of wind-up dates, where appropriate. Task Forces which are classified as non-departmental public bodies are excluded from the list as information on them is published in the annual "Public Bodies" publication.

  Individual Ministers are responsible for agreeing the programme of work of the Task Forces for which they are responsible.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tickets for the Millennium Experience had been sold in each region of the UK on the latest date for which figures are available. [107184]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: Dome tickets can be purchased through National Lottery outlets, travel operators, the New Millennium Experience Company's website and a call centre as well as at the dome. It should be borne in mind, however, that when people purchase dome tickets, particularly those bought at the dome itself but also those purchased through the other outlets, their location at the time is not always an indication of their place of residence. For example, 7.9 per cent. of tickets were bought on the door and are counted in the proportions as having been bought in England. Of the total sales as at 7 March, 97.2 per cent. were purchased in or from addresses in England, 1.3 per cent. in Wales, 1.1 per cent in Scotland and 0.4 per cent. in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on(a) the pay rates offered to and (b) the payment schedule for production crews of the Millennium Dome. [110073]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company considers the information requested to be confidential and that its release would both harm the company's relationship and negotiating position with the individuals in question and impair the company's ability to operate in a commercial and professional manner.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the terms and conditions of standard contracts with the operators of the catering outlets that operate in and around the Millennium Dome at Greenwich. [110505]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 February 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company considers the information requested to be confidential and that its release would both harm the company's relationship and negotiating position with the individuals in question and impair the company's ability to operate in a commercial and professional manner.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many contracts were awarded by the New Millennium Experience Company to(a) advertisers and (b) designers; and what is the total cost to the NMEC of those contracts to date. [110913]
  369W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: M & C Saatchi were appointed by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) in August 1997 to develop an integrated communications campaign, including creative development, media planning and sales promotion in support of the Millennium Experience and its associated National Programme. Their appointment followed a competitive process, through OJEC. As stated in the OJEC advertisement, the estimated total value of the contract is up to £16 million. NMEC has contracted no other advertisers.

  Design contracts for exhibit zones, entered into by NMEC, were also subject to OJEC procedures in August 1997. The total value of these contracts is about £17.1 million (excluding VAT), subject to normal resolution procedures.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the contracts awarded by the New Millennium Experience Company to(a) advertisers and (b) designers were granted after a process of competitive tendering; and how many of those contracts were still in place on 31 January 2000. [110914]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: All contracts awarded by the New Millennium Experience Company to advertisers and designers were granted after a process of competitive tendering. The advertising contract with M & C Saatchi is still in place. The designers have completed their services under the agreements. The contracts are still in place in the sense that NMEC either owns the products of their services or is licensed to use them.

  Sport and Tourism
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking to promote the importance of sport in association with tourism; and if he will make a statement. [112640]

  Janet Anderson
  On 11 January this year, my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and I launched the British Tourist Authority's Action Plan for Sports Tourism. The strategy aims to position sports as an integral part of the British tourism product and to maximise the potential of sport for inbound tourism to Britain. It includes proposals to establish a Sports Tourism Forum with partners (eg UK Sport) to identify opportunities, formulate strategy and implement a joint sports tourism action plan and to mount an international promotional campaign.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will assess the benefits of granting partially sighted people a reduced television licence fee. [113268]

  Janet Anderson
  The independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC considered the question but recommended only that registered blind people should be entitled to a 50 per cent. reduction in the licence fee. We have no plans to make any further assessment.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many formal bids were received in relation to the construction contract for Wembley National Stadium. [114116]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: Wembley National Stadium Ltd. (WNSL) has responsibility for the development and operation of the new National Stadium at Wembley and have advised that following a formal pre-qualification process between July and October 1999, five contractors were invited to submit a detailed first stage bid. WNSL held four interviews following, which one party withdrew. An updated pack of project information was issued to each of the three remaining contractors which invited revised proposals by January 2000. Following further assessment and negotiation, WNSL agreed on 6 March 2000 that Bovis/Multiplex JV should act as the Preferred Contractor for a 20-week period.

  The construction contract will be awarded to Bovis/Multiplex JV only if at the end of the 20-week period terms have been agreed which are satisfactory to WNSL and its funders. In addition, Citex, the Project Monitor appointed by Sport England, have had full sight of all supporting paperwork and bid documents throughout this process.

  Sport in Schools
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the organisations with which he has discussed the provision of sport in schools during the past year. [114442]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have held meetings with a number of organisations to discuss sport in schools. Since my appointment to this Department, I have met the National Council of Sport; the Youth Sport Trust; The Youth Charter for Sport; the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education; the Physical Education Association UK: the Independent Schools Council; the HM Chief Inspector of Schools; the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; and a large number of sports governing bodies including the CCPR. I have also had discussions with Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment.

  National Lottery
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications for National Lottery grants have been submitted to date by organisations in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency; of these, how many were successful; and what was the total amount of such grants. [112933]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: There have been 81 successful applications from organisations in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency and the total value of the successful grant applications is £3,034,889. 169 applications for National Lottery grants have been received to date. These figures are based on information provided to use by the Lottery Distributing Bodies. The total number of applications excludes figures from the Millennium Commission which does not hold the information in the form requested.

  Athletics Stadium
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place in the Library a copy of transcripts of(a) media statements and (b) interviews which he gave on or subsequent to 2 March concerning Wembley National Stadium and venues for major athletics events. [113938]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: Copies of the only relevant transcript in the possession of the Department, dealing with an interview given to BBC Radio 5 Live on 2 March, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. Copies of departmental press notices are placed in both Libraries as a matter of course. They are also available to hon. Members online either on POLIS or at the Department's website (www.culture.gov.uk).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women serving a prison sentence in England and Wales on 1 March for the non-payment of fines; and if he will make a statement. [114493]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest available information is for 31 January 2000 when there were 86 male and three female fine defaulters in prison in England and Wales.

  Prisons (Drugs Tests)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the current urine test in Her Majesty's prisons for determining a prisoner's drug use. [114448]

  Mr. Boateng
  Mandatory drug testing (MDT) is contracted to an independent laboratory, Medscreen. The analytical process if highly accurate, fully meets industry

  Average time taken for police forces to complete an inquiry made under child protection guidance (Home Office Circular 47/1993) (A) where internal (i.e. force) inquiries are made, and (B) where inquiries outside the force are made, by Police Force Area 1996–99

  Number of days

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Avon and Somerset

  4–10

  10–15

  5–10

  30

  8

  1–14

  Bedfordshire

  13

  18

  6

  21

  13

  32

  Cambridgeshire

  1–2

  5+

  2–3

  14

  14

  28

  Cheshire

  3.67

  8.87

  4

  9

  2–3

  6–7

  City of London

  1

  7–21

  1

  21–28

  1

  90

  Cleveland

  10–21

  10–21

  210

  210

  61–7

  61–14

  Cumbria

  5

  14

  7

  16

  5

  25

  Derbyshire

  2

  14

  7

  21

  2

  20

  Devon and Cornwall

  5

  10

  35

  56

  20

  82

  Dorset

  1–2

  3–28

  1–2

  3–28

  5–7

  7–28

  Durham

  1–2

  7–40

  4

  7–28

  7

  14

  Dyfed-Powys

  5

  21

  6

  13

  8

  13–14

  Essex

  6

  25

  11

  21–27

  10

  28

  Gloucestershire

  8

  27.5

  5

  21

  5

  23

  Greater Manchester

  21

  28

  47–63

  47–63

  28

  28–42

  Gwent

  2

  2

  5

  30

  2–13

  30

  Hampshire

  3

  5

  2

  11

  2

  13

  Hertfordshire

  3.4

  22

  44

  419

  43

  416

  Humberside

  3

  3

  3

  10

  3

  3

  Kent

  2

  5

  3

  7

  5

  7

  Lancashire

  2

  16

  2

  16

  8

  18

  Leicestershire

  2

  4

  4–5

  0

  2

  30

  372W
  standards and is subject to a rigorous quality assurance programme. Voluntary drug testing is conducted by prisons staff using less sophisticated methods, to provide an indication of drug misuse. Unlike MDT, disciplinary measures do not routinely result from positive voluntary tests.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements for voluntary urine testing in Her Majesty's prisons. [114449]

  Mr. Boateng
  Voluntary drug testing will be made available to all prisoners who request it and who are assessed as suitable, by April 2001.]

  Licensing Act 1964
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964. [114727]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In the last year, we have received a number of representations about the operation of section 182 from individuals and organisations representing musicians and the entertainment industry. Proposals for reform and modernisation of alcohol and public entertainment licensing will be set out in the White Paper which we expect to publish soon.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the last three years for which figures are available, what was the average time taken to process a criminal record check under child protection arrangements(a) per police force area and (b) in total; and if he will make a statement. [114734]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The table shows information in relation to checks conducted by police forces in England and Wales under the terms of Home Office Circular 47/1993. Arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland are a matter for the respective Secretaries of State.
  373W

  Average time taken for police forces to complete an inquiry made under child protection guidance (Home Office Circular 47/1993) (A) where internal (i.e. force) inquiries are made, and (B) where inquiries outside the force are made, by Police Force Area 1996–99

  Number of days

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Lincolnshire

  1

  8

  1

  8

  2

  9

  Merseyside

  184

  194

  3

  1–21

  4

  14–21

  Metropolitan

  28

  33

  12.6

  17.9

  15

  20

  Norfolk

  4

  n/a

  28–42

  42–56

  2–3

  14–21

  Northamptonshire

  12

  25

  14

  26

  17

  33

  Northumbria

  4

  7

  4

  11

  5–6

  14–35

  North Wales

  28

  42–56

  7–28

  14–28+

  1–60

  1–60

  North Yorkshire

  2

  7

  2

  7

  2

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  10

  15

  10

  30

  10

  25

  South Wales

  20

  30

  9

  16

  48

  60

  South Yorkshire

  7–10

  14–28

  7–10

  14–28

  7–10

  14–28

  Staffordshire

  1–5

  n/a

  1–5

  30

  1–3

  30

  Suffolk

  5

  15

  4

  12

  14

  26

  Surrey

  1

  2–30

  1

  2–21

  1

  2–42

  Sussex

  4

  21

  4

  21

  5

  21

  Thames Valley

  14

  14

  547

  547

  35

  37

  Warwickshire

  8

  3–21

  9

  3–21

  9–12

  1–21

  West Mercia

  7

  28

  5

  14+

  5

  5–35

  West Midlands

  3

  28

  2

  28

  4

  35

  West Yorkshire

  4–30

  14–30

  23.25

  25.4

  20

  23

  Wiltshire

  3–4

  7–10

  5–7

  10–4

  5–7

  10.14

  1 Problem with computer system.

  2 Figures relate to 91 per cent, of checks processed for this period (Cleveland does not record the time taken to process each request).

  3 Force does not request checks from other forces.

  4 Force only records time taken from date form is input onto record log system to date reply sent. It does not refer to time taken from date the form was received.

  5 Figures only relate to 1 June 1997–31 March 1998. Thames Valley installed a new computer system which went live on 1 June 1997 and records details more efficiently.

  6 Figures relate to (a) 75 per cent, and (b) 30 per cent, of checks processed for this period (Cleveland does not record the time taken to process each request).

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal record checks were carried out under child protection arrangements in each month in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [114735]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information is set out in the following table, which shows numbers of checks carried out by police forces in England and Wales under the terms of Home Office Circular 47/93. Arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the respective Secretaries of State.

  Criminal record checks carried out on behalf of local authorities, statutory health bodies, schools and further education establishments (Home Office Circular 47/93), by Police Force Area 1996–99

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Avon and Somerset

  24,487

  28,698

  27,580

  Bedfordshire

  7,745

  8,536

  9,128

  Cambridgeshire

  7,283

  9,765

  15,498

  Cheshire

  16,697

  13,374

  15,411

  City of London

  692

  802

  574

  Cleveland

  6,710

  7,709

  10,452

  Cumbria

  4,736

  6,781

  6,813

  Derbyshire

  9,331

  9,831

  10,268

  Devon and Cornwall

  21,188

  24,638

  22,736

  Dorset

  22,479

  24,792

  30,231

  Durham

  12,999

  15,339

  17,456

  Dyfed-Powys

  11,135

  12,675

  10,275

  Essex

  15,946

  15,748

  16,764

  Gloucestershire

  6,229

  6,373

  11,591

  Greater Manchester

  37,244

  36,061

  32,766

  Gwent

  4,707

  7,501

  7,025

  Hampshire

  29,935

  34,564

  36,612

  Hertfordshire

  10,433

  7,982

  8,543

  Humberside

  13,454

  14,915

  16,917

  374W

  Criminal record checks carried out on behalf of local authorities, statutory health bodies, schools and further education establishments (Home Office Circular 47/93), by Police Force Area 1996–99

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Kent

  17,603

  18,953

  22,705

  Lancashire

  20,041

  21,801

  21,751

  Leicestershire

  7,543

  7,893

  20,210

  Lincolnshire

  7,180

  8,064

  12,205

  Merseyside

  15,482

  18,203

  16,170

  Metropolitan

  75,804

  91,146

  92,608

  Norfolk

  9,444

  9,058

  n/a

  Northamptonshire

  7,864

  8,504

  8,802

  Northumbria

  18,601

  22,029

  23,614

  North Wales

  11,955

  12,259

  12,893

  North Yorkshire

  7,628

  9,024

  10,053

  Nottinghamshire

  9,939

  10,132

  13,123

  South Wales

  11,411

  15,082

  15,247

  South Yorkshire

  10,460

  12,169

  12,631

  Staffordshire

  8,311

  9,297

  12,407

  Suffolk

  5,249

  5,279

  6,115

  Surrey

  11,302

  12,361

  12,711

  Sussex

  15,483

  18,204

  19,974

  Thames Valley

  137,487

  21,422

  31,079

  Warwickshire

  5,599

  6,747

  6,943

  West Mercia

  18,239

  22,066

  25,631

  West Midlands

  37,152

  40,320

  38,023

  West Yorkshire

  16,163

  18,229

  18,591

  Wiltshire

  7,666

  8,439

  9,389

  Total

  657,036

  712,765

  769,515

  1Figures only relate to I June 1997 to 31 March 1998. Thames Valley installed a new computer system which went live on 1 June 1997 and records details more efficiently—previous records only kept on paper and not as reliable.

  Note:

  n/a = Figures are not available. Norfolk have ceased collecting these statistics.
  375W
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning delays in the issuing of criminal records checks on individuals under child protection arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [114733]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have received several letters and telephone calls over the past year concerning delays in obtaining criminal record checks. Under arrangements agreed with the Home Office, police forces in England and Wales aim to reply to employers and other agencies within 10 days, unless inquiries need to be made of other forces in which case the aim is to reply within three weeks. However, these targets are subject to the allocation of resources within each police force which is the responsibility of the Chief Constable.

  Arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland are a matter for the respective Secretaries of State.

  City Status
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions exist for a city to have its title and status removed. [114882]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Apart from those cities that enjoy city status by ancient prescriptive usage, city status is an honour conferred by the Sovereign by Letters Patent. As it is a matter for the Royal Prerogative, the Sovereign can strip a city of its status, but this has never been done. Any city acknowledged by ancient prescriptive usage would be expected to have had that status confirmed by local government legislation during the last 100–150 years. It is possible, however, under local government reorganisation legislation, for a new local authority to lose the city status previously enjoyed by part of that authority.

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of the review of policing arrangements for the state visit of the President of China will be published. [115544]

  Mr. Straw
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis will publish the report later today and I will place a copy in the Library.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 818W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, what were the issues that led to his decision that substantial public funds could not be justified to support the Global Cultural Diversity Congress which he became aware of after 7 February. [115054]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The issues that related to my and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's decisions were value for money and whether it was appropriate to inject public funds into a private company in serious difficulties.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 817W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, what undertaking that additional funding would be provided to Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. by his Department was
  376W
  given by his Department before the Commission for Racial Equality's meeting on 7 February; and if he will make a statement. [115056]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I do not accept that an undertaking was made that additional funding would be provided.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2000,Official Report, column 288W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, (a) for what reasons he will not place the accountants' report into Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. in the Library and (b) what was the cost to public funds of the accountants' report into Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd.; and if he will make a statement. [115058]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The accountant's report was requested to inform consideration by Ministers of the policy issues and never intended for publication.

  The final invoice was £31,824.72.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 818W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, from what source he understood the additional funding for the Global Cultural Diversity Congress which was to be discussed at the Commission for Racial Equality's meeting on 7 February would be provided; and if he will make a statement. [115065]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I understand the potential sources discussed were from the Commission for Racial Equality and Government funds.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 818W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress (a) when Mr. Gurbux Singh will take up his duties as Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality; (b) if the discussions with Mr. Gurbux Singh on the timetable for the review which was announced on 22 February have been completed; and (c) if the review will commence before Mr. Gurbux Singh formally takes up his duties as the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality; and if he will make a statement. [115055]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Mr. Singh officially takes up his position as Chairman in mid May 2000.

  The discussions with Mr. Gurbux Singh on the timetable for the review which was announced on 22 February have not been completed.

  The review will commence before Mr. Gurbux Singh formally takes up his duties as the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) of 6 March 2000,Official Report, column 548W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, if the full text of the review conducted by Mr. Gurbux Singh will be placed in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [115057]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are assured that the review by Mr. Gurbux Singh will be thorough. He shall review the events that led to the cancellation of the Global Cultural
  377W
  Diversity Congress, including possible implications for the corporate governance of the Commission for Racial Equality and to make recommendations.

  The text of the review will be placed in the Library.

  Jury Trial
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the amount of Crown court time taken up if (i) 25 per cent., (ii) 50 per cent., (iii) 75 per cent. and (iv) 100 per cent. of defendants electing Crown court trial but refused it by the magistrates under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill appealed to the Crown court against the magistrates' decision, assuming that an oral hearing was granted in (1) 25 per cent., (2) 50 per cent., (3) 75 per cent. and (4) 100 per cent. of appeals for each proportion of appeals in (i) to (iv); [115212]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000, Official Report, column 820W, on jury trial, what research he has undertaken into the likelihood of a defendant appealing against magistrates' decision as to mode of trial under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; if he will place a copy of the research in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [115061]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No research has been conducted on this issue. It is assumed that the magistrates will decide to try about 13,940 cases. There is no cost to public funds but the implications of appeals on the estimated savings from the Bill are contained in the table.

  Appeal rate

  Oral hearing rate

  25 per cent.

  50 per cent.

  75 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  25 per cent.

  £ million savings

  128

  122

  116

  110

  Number of hours

  799

  1,597

  2,396

  3,196

  50 per cent.

  £ million savings

  126

  119

  112

  104

  Number of hours

  1,017

  2,035

  3,051

  4,066

  75 per cent.

  £ million savings

  125

  116

  107

  99

  Number of hours

  1,235

  2,470

  3,703

  4,066

  100 per cent.

  Number of hours

  1,454

  2,904

  4,358

  5,808

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 820W, on jury trial, what discussions he has had with (a) resident judges, (b) other circuit judges and (c) the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the requirement for resident judges and their nominated deputies to hear appeals from magistrates' decisions as to mode of trial within 48 hours, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; what was the nature of those discussions; what representations he has received; and if he will make a statement; [115062]

  (2) what research he has undertaken into the feasibility of resident judges hearing appeals against magistrates' decisions as to mode of trial within 48 hours under the
  378W
  provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; if he will place a copy of the research in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [115064]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The proposal that appeals on mode of trial should be subject to a speedy procedure with determination within 48 hours was discussed with the Senior Judiciary and the Crown Prosecution Service. No research has been undertaken on this matter and no representations have been received.

  Political Parties (Donations)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the annual cost of a scheme to promote tax relief for donations of £500 or less to political parties; and if he will place in the Library the results of research which he has undertaken into the cost of such a scheme. [115122]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The cost of a scheme would depend on the number and size of donations (up to a £500 limit) in respect of which qualifying political parties claimed relief. The Government's White Paper on the Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom, published in July 1999, estimated the loss of revenue at upwards of £4 million or £5 million a year. This estimate was based on an assumption that the three main parties would claim relief on an average donation of £20 from each of their members.

  Safe Cells
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many safe cells will be installed in prisons in the next financial year. [112590]

  Mr. Boateng
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 March 2000, c. 76W]: Rye Hill prison is scheduled to open in January 2001 and will provide 576 cells all of which incorporate the key elements of the Prison Service's new improved standard cell or "safe" cell.

  Two new prisons, Ashfield and Forest Bank, opened in this financial year providing 1,088 improved standard cells.

  All new prisons are required to provide cells which reflect the design requirements of the Prison Service's new improved standard cell or "safe cell".

  Home Detention Curfew
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the prisoners released to date under the Home Detention Curfew scheme have(a) breached the conditions of the curfew, (b) disappeared, (c) had their curfew revoked and (d) re-offended whilst on the scheme; what offences were committed by those who re-offended whilst on the scheme; what was the (i) average and (ii) maximum sentence received by a prisoner for an offence committed whilst on the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [112728]

  Mr. Boateng
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 March 2000, c. 448–49W]: I am now in a position to provide further information regarding the breach and revocation of Home Detention Curfew licences. In addition, my

  379W
  previous reply included a number of inaccurate figures, arising from administrative errors. These figures have now been corrected.

  As at 29 February 2000, 17,792 prisoners had been placed on the Home Detention Curfew scheme. At this date, there had been 625 breaches of curfew. Unauthorised absences from the place of curfew during the curfew period, tampering with the equipment and violence directed at the monitoring contractors' staff count as violations. There are different levels of violations. The most serious violations, or an accumulation of less serious violations, constitute a breach of the curfew.

  Those subject to Home Detention Curfew may be recalled to prison if:
  there is a breach of the curfew;
  their whereabouts can no longer be electronically monitored; it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm; and
  they commit an offence or breach any requirement of probation supervision.

  As at 29 February 2000, 832 of those placed on Home Detention Curfew have had their licences revoked by the Secretary of State, as opposed to the figure of 862 published in my earlier reply. As previously indicated, breaches of non-curfew related conditions by curfewees whose original offences were committed prior to 1 January 1999 are dealt with by the courts. Information on these cases is not held centrally.

  As my previous reply made clear, the vast majority of those curfewees whose licences are revoked by the Secretary of State are quickly arrested and returned to custody. Fifty were unlawfully at large on 29 February 2000. While the priority to be given to pursuing individual cases will be an operational matter for local police forces, Home Office Circular 1/1999 made clear that Home Detention Curfew recalls should be regarded as "urgent action" cases. In addition, the National Identification Service at New Scotland Yard issues "The Police Gazette" weekly to all police forces, including details of curfewees who are unlawfully at large. The Prison Service regularly monitors police progress in apprehending those curfewees who are unlawfully at large. When curfewees are apprehended following a period unlawfully at large, they are required to serve the full period of time outstanding at the point their licence was revoked.

  As of 29 February, the Prison Service had received notification of 182 curfewees who had been charged with an offence committed while subject to the Home Detention Curfew scheme, rather than the figure of 194 given in my previous reply.

  A revised breakdown of the offences with which the curfewees were charged is shown in the table. This breakdown has been prepared from information supplied by police forces and drawn from the police national computer. As previously indicated, further analysis of re-offending by those subject to Home Detention Curfew, including the procedures for notification of further charges to the Prison Service by the police, is currently under way as part of a long-term evaluation of the scheme.

  The purpose of Home Detention Curfew is to help prisoners bridge the transition from custody to the community through the structure and discipline imposed
  380W
  by the curfew. The scheme only applies to short-term prisoners and no prisoner can be granted Home Detention Curfew without first passing a risk assessment. Overall, the Home Detention Curfew scheme has an impressive success rate of 95 per cent. of curfewees completing their period of curfew licence. However, as I made clear in my previous reply, we are not complacent about any re-offending on curfew and the scheme is strictly enforced.

  Offence type

  Number

  Burglary, theft and stealing from shops (including taking without consent/taking and driving away)

  65

  Assault

  31

  Driving and traffic offences

  16

  Drug offences

  15

  Breach of the peace (including drunk and disorderly)

  14

  Handling stolen goods/deception

  10

  Criminal damage

  10

  Threatening behaviour

  8

  Possession of an offensive weapon

  3

  Breach of court injunction or restraining order

  3

  Rape

  2

  Harassment

  1

  Going equipped

  1

  False imprisonment

  Arson

  1

  Indecent exposure

  1

  Total

  182

  Note:

  Where a curfewee was charged with more than one offence, they appear in the table next to the most serious offence. The table excludes those where, following initial notification, the Prison Service was informed that the charges had been withdrawn.

  Roger Crooks
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates in 1993 and 1994 Roger Crooks was interviewed by the Anti-Terrorist Squad. [114953]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [pursuant to the reply, 16 March 2000, c. 268W]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that officers of S013, known as the Anti-Terrorist Branch, interviewed Roger Crooks on 21 June 1994.

  Press Office
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 821W and the answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) of 2 March 2000, Official Report, column 385W, if he will publish the total number of persons employed in the Home Office Press Office broken down by grade, for (a) (i) 1 May 1997, (ii) 1 January 1998, (iii) 1 January 1999 and (iv) 1 January 2000; and (b) as an average for the year ending 1 March over (i) 1996–97; (ii) 1997–98; (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 1999–2000. [115059]

  Mr. Straw
  As I said in my reply to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 2 March 2000,Official Report, column 385W, records of staff numbers are, of necessity,

  381W
  a snapshot of a particular month and cannot take fully into account staff arrivals and departures which are happening on a working basis.

  The total number of persons employed in the Home Office Press Office, broken down by grade for the dates in question, were:
  1 May 1997: three Senior Information Officers, 10 Information Officers (two part-time), one Assistant Information Officer, a Higher Executive Officer on secondment, one Executive Officer, one Administrative Officer and two Administrative Assistants;
  January 1998: three Senior Information Officers, 11 Information Officers (two part-time), one Executive Officer, one Administrative Officer and two Administrative Assistants;
  January 1999: two Senior Information Officers, eight Information Officers (two part-time), three Assistant Information Officers, one Higher Executive Officer on secondment, one Executive Officer, one Administrative Officer and two Administrative Assistants; and
  January 2000: three Senior Information Officers, six Information Officers, three Assistant Information Officers, one Higher Executive Officer, one Executive Officer, one Administrative Officer and two Administrative Assistants.

  For all these periods, the Home Office Press Office was managed by an Assistant Director at either Grade 7 or temporary Grade 6 level.

  At virtually no time since May 1997 has the full staff complement been reached. There have been a considerable number of vacancies at various grades at any one time. Attachments and secondees, some at no cost to the Department and some for less than six weeks' duration, make the calculation of average staff levels almost meaningless.

  In addition at various times through this period, Chief Immigration Officers were on six month attachment to the Home Office Press Office. It should also be noted that the grades referred to are substantive grades and that at various times press officers may have been on temporary promotion to a higher grade.

  The staff details supplied to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report in July 1998 are averages for the years in question and an average for the year to 1 March for the years 1996–97 and 1997–98 would vary very little.

  It would not be possible to obtain the averages for 1998–99 and for 1999–2000 without disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to employ members of the Home Office Press Office on special adviser terms; which of his special advisers are authorised to speak to the press on his behalf; if they are required to consult the Home Office Press Office before doing so; if a record is kept; and if he will make a statement. [115036]

  Mr. Straw
  There are no plans to employ members of the Home Office Press Office on special adviser terms. Of two special advisers at the Home Office, appointed by the Home Secretary under terms and conditions set out in the model contract for special advisers, one (Ed Owen) supports Ministers in the presentational aspects of policy and in doing so has regular direct contact with the media and liaises with the Home Office Press Office.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the persons employed as special advisers in his Department since 2 May 1997, indicating their salary bands, in each financial year. [115063]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is as follows:

  Name

  Period of employment

  Pay band 1998–99

  Pay band 1999–2000

  Lord Warner

  May 1997 to October 1998

  —

  —

  Ed Owen

  May 1997 to date

  A

  B

  Justin Russell

  October 1998 to date

  B

  B

  Lord Warner stepped down as my Senior Special Adviser prior to the introduction of pay bands. Prior to that salaries paid to special advisers fell within pay ranges which were, in 1997–98, £24,349–£73,484. From 1 April 1998 to 1 December 1998, the pay range was £24,836-£74,957, and after 1 December 1998, £26,000–£76,050.

  In addition, a special adviser, Ruth Allan, was employed between 1 September 1997 and 30 September 1998 to work with the Youth Justice Task Force. Her salary was also within the pay ranges mentioned above.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Courts (Closures)
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many courts have(a) been due for closure and (b) closed in each of the last four years; and what estimate he has made of the costs saved by each closure. [114732]

  Jane Kennedy
  The number of magistrates courts assessed by local Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs) as due for closure is: 1996–20, 1997–24, 1998–25, 1999–8. The number of courts closed is: 1996–20, 1997–22, 1998–24, 1999–8. The Government's policy is that magistrates courts are best managed locally by MCCs, and that decisions and costings concerning the number of magistrates courts in its area are for the MCC to determine. The cost saving achieved by the closures is not collected centrally.

  The Chief Executive of the Court Service has supplied the following information.

  Since 1 March 1996 to date, public consultation on the question of closure has been authorised in respect of 37 county courts, of which 25 have been closed or amalgamated.

  The number of county courts closed in each of the last four years since 1 March 1996 is: 1996–7, 1997–8, 1998–6, 1999–2. Two county courts have been closed to date since 1 January 2000.
  383W
  The financial savings to the Court Service are chiefly in terms of rent and accommodation charges, running costs such as telephone, postage, and maintenance of buildings. Figures on all the savings accruing from county court closures since 1996 are not kept centrally by the Court Service. However, a broad conservative estimate of accommodation charges saved and general running costs would indicate a minimum saving of around £3,000,000 over the four year period since March 1996. During the period there were no Crown court closures, actual or contemplated.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the civil legal aid fund of increases in court fees in each of the last four years. [114731]

  Mr. Lock
  Court fee increases in November 1996 were estimated to cost the legal aid fund some £14 million. No estimate was made of the small increase in fees in 1997 and there were no increases in 1998.
  384W
  We estimated that the overall effect of increases in some and decreases in other court fees, in April 1999, would provide savings to legal aid of around £6 million per annum.

  Damages Act 1996
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to use his powers under Section 1 of the Damages Act 1996. [115239]

  Mr. Lock
  The Act allows the Lord Chancellor to set a rate by which lump sum awards for damages are discounted to offset the advantage to the claimant of receiving his money all at once. In Wells v. Wells [1999] 1 A.C. 345 the House of Lords ruled that the rate should be based on the return available from Index Linked Government Securities (ILGS) because the claimant must be assumed to pursue risk-averse investments. The Lord Chancellor has today issued a consultation paper seeking comments on how the discount rate should be set and reviewed. In the light of responses he will decide whether, and if so how, to exercise the power under section 1 of the Act.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill to be taken on Monday next.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [H.L.]
11.6 a.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is an enormous privilege to introduce this debate, in which so many distinguished speakers are to take part. But it is also a heavy responsibility, because millions of British people now want to leave the emerging superstate of the European Union and can find no voice to speak for them. They grow daily more frustrated as, without their consent, they see their hard-won independence being steadily devoured by the octopus in Brussels. Not only have they not given their consent; they have not even been consulted; and they have been manipulated and misled—a fact of which they are not yet fully aware.
I trust that it is common ground that there has been no serious national debate as to whether the United Kingdom should stay in the European Union, or whether it should leave. This Bill, if enacted, would stimulate such a debate, which I submit is long overdue.
The Bill may not be perfectly worded, but I trust its intentions are clear. It would require the Treasury to set up an independent committee of inquiry into what life might be like outside the European Union for our economy, defence and constitution. The committee would have to report by 1st November, so that its findings could receive some public attention and debate before the Government's final negotiations at the current Intergovernmental Conference and at the Nice summit in December.
1806
I have said that millions of British people now want to leave the European Union, and that they do so in the absence of any serious national debate as to whether we should stay in or get out.
To justify the first contention, that millions want to leave, I fear I have to rely on an analysis of recent opinion polls, however unreliable they may be and however much their results may depend on the questions asked.
There is only one pollster, MORI, which has asked the same question 20 times since 1977. That question is: "If there were a referendum now on whether Britain should stay in or get out of the European Union, how would you vote?". It may surprise noble Lords to learn that, in reply to this consistent question, the "get out" vote has not dropped below 41 per cent since 1987 and has averaged 46 per cent since 1977. The last poll, in October last year, gave 42 per cent "stay in" and 45 per cent "get out". I shall put a detailed analysis of all 20 polls in the Library.
There have, of course, been other polls. The Social Attitudes Survey last November found 53 per cent in favour of getting out; there was an ICM poll for the BBC in January; and Gallup's poll this week for the Daily Telegraph indicated 39 per cent in favour of either leaving or of staying in a less integrated Europe than now, with the EU amounting to little more than a free trade area.Of course I agree with noble Lords who may say that these are only opinion polls and cannot be relied upon. I merely claim that they show that a substantial proportion of the British people want either to withdraw from the European Union completely or to reduce our relationship with it to that of a free trade area, which comes to much the same thing.
The last serious debate about our relationship with the Treaty of Rome took place during the referendum campaign of 1975 when we voted to stay in what was then the Common Market—a very different animal from the European Union that we see before us today. Furthermore, in 1975 we were promised that we would suffer no loss of sovereignty if we did vote to stay in. The Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, misled every household in the land by sending the following two statements through their letterboxes. First:
"Through membership of the Market we are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is the essence of sovereignty".
Secondly, and worse:
"There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an economic and monetary union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed".
We all know that that threat had not been removed, but the Prime Minister's assurance must have done quite a bit for the "yes" vote to stay in the Common Market. The "yes" campaign was very much better funded and organised than the "no" campaign.
It is here that the behaviour of the previous Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath, and other leading Europhiles was very much more deceitful. We have just learnt from a chilling Radio 4

1807
programme, which went out at 8 p.m. on 3rd February this year, that, through their influence over the media, those Europhiles softened up and manipulated British public opinion in the early 1970s, before Sir Edward took us into the Community in 1972. He appears to have authorised the active support of the Foreign Office and, believe it or not, the -yes" campaign seems to have received substantial funding from the CIA, channelled through the European Movement. This funding supported, among much else, a series of breakfasts at the Connaught Hotel where the "yes" campaign was co-ordinated. Those breakfasts appear, for example, to have engineered the removal of Mr Jack De Manio from the "Today" programme because he was regarded as too Euro-sceptic.
In this context, it is interesting that still today our Government pretend that economic and monetary union is an economic project. Everybody else in Europe admits that it is a political project which is designed to cement the building of a superstate. That makes nonsense of the Chancellor's five economic tests and is misleading the people, perhaps—I do not know—intentionally. Just in case any noble Lord is about to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, I shall put the full text of the programme to which I have referred in your Lordships' Library. I would be happy to debate this disgraceful episode at greater length when noble Lords have had the opportunity to read it. In the meantime, I contend that the British people have been manipulated, misled, ignored and taken for granted as their politicians have foolishly led them into the quicksand of the Treaty of Rome. When government and opposition agree, the people are disfranchised. So it is a great credit to the British people that, despite being told by all three political parties and all our political media for 28 years that our growing subservience to Brussels is vital to the national interest, so many of them do not believe it and want to get out. The inquiry and national debate which this Bill would set in train would make sure that if we go on to further, and even full, integration with the EU, we would at least do so with our eyes open. I would hope, too, that even the most ardent Euro-enthusiasts would be so confident of their position that they would welcome such a debate and therefore support the Bill, but I fear that the next few hours may disappoint me.
I suppose that I should touch on some of the main Euro-realist arguments in favour of withdrawal which I hope the committee of inquiry will consider. Before I do so, let me reassure the House that we Euro-realists regard ourselves as good Europeans. One of our big problems is that the word "Europe" has become sharply ambiguous. It means both the continent of different nations and the emerging superstate. So, when a Euro-realist is rude about "Europe"—referring to a product of the treaty and Brussels—he is easily cast as Euro-phobic, a little Englander or a dangerous nationalist. So, let me at least be clear where I stand: I love Europe but I loathe and fear the Treaty of Rome and all its works.
1808
At its most simple, our position is that we believe the emerging EU superstate to be dangerous for peace in Europe, and negative for our prosperity.
Let me deal briefly with peace. I suppose that the most important claim made by the Euro-enthusiasts is that the EU is essential to keep the peace in Europe. We do not agree. We say, instead—and history bears us out—that, on the whole, democracies do not provoke wars, whereas forced or premature conglomerations of disparate nations often end in conflict, especially when the ties which bind them unnaturally together are loosened. We point to Yugoslavia, the Caucasus and much of Africa. So, we say that our vision of Europe's democracies retaining their identities and freely trading together under NATO is less likely to end in conflict than is an undemocratic EU superstate. We also note, for good measure, that the post-war ideas which inspired the Treaty of Rome—to stop Germany going to war again and to resist the growing menace of the Soviet Union—are now redundant. So, we believe that democracy and NATO are the guarantors of peace in Europe, not the power-crazed bureaucrats in Brussels.
More specifically, we do not like the fact that we do not have an independent foreign policy any more, because most of our decisions have to be cleared with 28 policy groups sitting in Brussels. And we fear that the new European defence initiative, or "army" as Mr Prodi insists it will be, will undermine NATO and encourage US isolationism. We regret that France seems driven to go on biting the hand that freed her and has therefore insisted that the new army should be capable of autonomous action outside NATO. I hope that other noble Lords far better qualified than me will expand on these defence issues.
As to the constitution, it is clear that we stand at another very important fork in the road to the European superstate. The Government intend to cede more of our power of veto at the IGC into which the defence initiative I have mentioned will probably be "folded".
But there are other areas where the octopus is gently putting its tentacles round our unsuspecting constitution. Our new regional development agencies encompass areas agreed in Brussels, and are the blueprint for the regional assemblies designed to make Westminster eventually redundant. The emerging EU legal system corpus juris threatens habeas corpus and trial by jury. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is the fledgling EU constitution, justiciable in the Luxembourg Court and designed to take precedence over all our legislation. There are nasty directives on the way which will put us straight about racial discrimination, and so on; the juggernaut rolls relentlessly on.
I said that our membership of the EU is also negative for our prosperity. The most worrying prospect here is that the Commission may start to bring forward tax harmonisation, which is Euro-speak for forcing up our taxes by as much as 25 per cent, if we were fully harmonised, as a single market measure. We have had a foretaste of this with the imposition of

1809
droit de suite—not quite a tax, just a little levy on modern art which, together with VAT imposed by Brussels, threatens our great international art market. We can also see the shape of things to come in the saga of the withholding tax, thoughtfully designed by the Commission and our good partners to drive our vitally important Eurobond market back to New York and Zurich. So far, even our Euro-enthusiastic Government have said that they will veto this if necessary, which it can do because the Commission has proposed it as a tax measure, which of course it is. But if the Commission were to bring it forward as a single market measure it would be subject to the dreaded qualified majority vote and we could be forced to accept it anyway.
Generally speaking, the single market is not turning out to be the simple free market exercise that we thought it was when we signed the Single European Act in 1985. Its voting system is also being used against our mergers and acquisitions industry at the moment through the imposition of the Takeover Directive; and there are dozens of other British interests which have been threatened or damaged by the bureaucrats' harmonising craziness.
There is much misleading propaganda about our trading relationship with the single market. A wonderful example is to be found on page 6 of the Government's White Paper on the IGC, where Mr Keith Vaz, the Minister for Europe, says:
"The Single Market allows our companies to operate in a home market of over 370 million people. Nearly 60 per cent of our trade is within the EU, and that business represents 3.5 million British jobs".
To demolish that statement entirely would take another whole day's debate in your Lordships' House. Today I only have time to place some doubt in your Lordships' minds. If we were to leave the EU and negotiate a bilateral free trade agreement with the single market we would be very much better off than we are at the moment. Switzerland has such an agreement, and exports more per capita to the EU than we do. Even Mexico has just concluded such an agreement. The EU trades in substantial surplus with us, which means that it has many more jobs dependent on its trade with us than we do on our trade with it. If we were to say that we wanted to leave the EU, it would actually want us to have a free trade agreement with it.
Even without such an agreement, Mr Vaz's statement is very misleading. At the moment the dues we pay to the EU outweigh the tariff advantages we get from the single market by about £2,000 million a year. So our present terms of access to Mr Vaz's home market are actually slightly negative. It simply is not true to say that 60 per cent of our trade is with the EU. What Mr Vaz means is that 58 per cent of our exports of goods goes to the EU, but goods now represent less than half our total exports. If services and income are taken into account, only some 40 per cent of our exports goes to the European Union, and they are declining and in deficit. Sixty per cent of our exports goes to the rest of the world, increasing and in surplus. But that is not the whole picture either, because Brussels' absurd diktats and over-regulation are
1810
visited upon the whole British population, and so the European content of our trade should be seen against our gross domestic product and not just our exports. Then we get the picture into perspective, which is that only some 9 per cent of our GDP is exported to the EU, some 11 per cent to the rest of the world, and the remaining 80 per cent stays right here in our domestic economy. So the mangy, corrupt, bureaucratic 9 per cent tail is wagging our healthy 91 per cent dog.
Mr Vaz and others are also very misleading when they suggest that we might lose 3.5 million jobs if we left the EU. Of course we would not. The trade would continue. It would be in the EU's interest for it to continue, and so would the jobs. If you do not believe that, perhaps I may suggest that you read the report by the respected National Institute of Economic and Social Research on the macroeconomic impact of British withdrawal from the European Union. The delightful thing about this report is that it was commissioned by the Government's Europhile front organisation, Britain in Europe, to which its findings must have come as a nasty shock. The NIESR estimates that only 2.7 million jobs are linked to exports to the European Union, and it states unequivocally that,
"There is no reason to suppose many of these, if any, would be lost permanently if Britain were to leave the EU".
I will put a one-page summary of that in your Lordships' Library.
The Institute of Directors came out with an even more damning report about our commercial relationship with the European Union only yesterday. Quite simply, it puts the nett cost of our belonging to the European Union at a very conservative £15,000 million per year. If the UK were to join the euro, the costs could escalate colossally, perhaps reaching £50 billion per annum, equivalent to 6 per cent of our GDP or more than our entire NHS and personal social services budget. I can but recommend that noble Lords and the Government read this whole report, but I will put a two-page summary in your Lordships' Library.
It is interesting that in their recent book, Britain and Europe: Choices for Change, Messrs Minford and Jamieson reach the same devastating conclusions by different routes. I will put that in the Library, too, and will be happy to supply any noble Lord who wants one with a copy, free of charge.
Finally, there is research out today which shows that our membership of the European Union has little or nothing to do with inward investment. I will put a two-page summary of that in the Library as well.
So over recent years our Euro-realist camp has put out several well-researched analyses from respectable economists of our economic relationship with the European Union, all of which show that we could be very much better off outside the EU than in it. We have sent them to the Government. We even sent some of the earlier ones to the last government—such as Better off out by the Institute of Economic Affairs, and we never receive a reply. There is no disagreement, just silence. It is rather like pumping high velocity bullets into a sack of sand. There are just slogans from the

1811
other side, but no possibility of debate. Yet the Government say that they do want a debate on all these issues. If they are telling the truth, may I suggest that they support this helpful little Bill?
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Pearson al Rannoch.)
11.25 a.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, while welcoming the opportunity given by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to debate this issue, I believe that the supporters of the Bill are guilty of relegating Britain to the sin-bin of Europe. Withdrawal from the EU would condemn us to leaving the open playing field of the single European market to other players; to clapping from the sidelines when Team Europe scores a goal; and, after cooling our heels in the dug-out of history, returning to the fray only to find that the game and the goalposts have been moved on.
But enough of hyperbole, my Lords. Let me temper my rhetoric with some facts and analysis. According to this week's Gallup poll, fewer than one in five Britons favour retreating from the European Union. Most conclude that Britain's standard of living would fall. And, indeed, the public's perceptions are confirmed by the recent report already quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, drawn up by Pain and Young on behalf of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. Although most of the 3.2 million jobs associated with Britain's engagement with the single European market would not be lost, the authors nevertheless claim—it was omitted by the noble Lord—that wages would be slashed to offset the deflationary shock of a 2 per cent cut in United Kingdom output as a consequence of withdrawal. And household consumption would tumble by a further 2.5 percentage points—hardly a ringing endorsement for withdrawal.
In the light of that analysis, I invite the sponsors of the Bill to respond to these questions. First, why is it that no one ever leaves the European Union? Indeed, countries only ever want to join. Queues longer than for the successful Dome line up to enter the tent of Europe. Everyone wants to join the party, except certain members of the party opposite. Everyone wants to bring a bottle, except those who have lost the bottle to fight Britain's corner in Europe. Do the sponsors believe all these EU countries are collectively mad, and that we alone are the rich repository of reason?
Secondly, who do we think Britain's friends will be outside on the doorstep? Who will take us in when we are in the cold? I hear siren voices opine that we should join NAFTA, hitching our fortunes to the Mexican economy among others—the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has already shown today his admiration for the Mexican economy—or that we should aspire to "dollarise" our economy in the fashion proposed by Argentina last year. Indeed, the impetuous rush to become a client state of the USA proposed by some commentators has always struck me as an abject
1812
surrender of Britain's sovereignty and independence. Not only is the idea wrong-headed, it squarely contradicts American foreign policy which encourages Britain to be a full and athletic member of the European Union, not a non-combatant.
Paradoxically, rushing to America's side will hardly stave off our European Union destiny. The free trade area between the European Union and the USA which will be established in the next 20 years would find Britain re-entering the EU, brought in through the front door by our American allies. How ironic!
Perhaps the sponsors of the Bill harp back to colonial times and Commonwealth ties, failing to grasp that countries such as Australia can never be near neighbours, just good friends. Indeed, the very act of posing Britain's future as a choice between the EU, the United States and the Commonwealth marvellously misunderstands Britain's true interests. Blest as we are with a unique history and language, we are splendidly positioned when it comes to sticking British thumbs in global pies. Our membership of the EU, the Commonwealth and the special relationship with the States provides us with an unparalleled platform to promote Britain's interests. Let us play to our strengths, not highlight our hesitations.
Thirdly, why do the sponsors want to remove us from the world's biggest marketplace of 370 million consumers, soon to be 500 million strong when the applicant countries join? Why, as a nation of shopkeepers, do we want to shut up shop? The idea that we could withdraw from the EU without undermining our membership of the market is fanciful. Why do we, the most clubbable of nations, want to leave the club?
Some commentators dispute the importance of the single European market, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, did this morning, suggesting that Britain's trade with its neighbours is in deficit, in default and indefinite. But it matters little whether the percentage of trade is 47 per cent or 60 per cent; the European Union is our biggest trading post. After all, we trade more with Holland than with China. Our ambition should not be to rebalance the percentages, but to swell and grow our trade worldwide. And to fulfil that ambition, our active participation in the single market, the super market of Europe, provides the forcing house to make British business lean, mean and keen in all the other markets of the world. The European Union is the backyard of British business success.
Only this week, government patience and persistence paid off in securing the single market for Britain in the domains of artists' resale rights and family milk chocolate. Or let us take the car industry. Do our colleagues opposite really believe that in the midst of the current trials and tribulations withdrawal from the EU would enhance the prospects for Rover, Rolls-Royce or other automobile manufacturers sited here? Excluded from the market-place, we would decline into the makers of spare parts. We would become the wing-mirrors of Europe—always looking back, never forward. At present, of course, we are the

1813
wing makers of Europe. BAE's Airbus, whose wings are made in my home town of Chester, illustrates admirably European collaboration at its finest. Would that survive the flight from reality?
I make one further point in relation to the current interest in the success or otherwise of British industry. I wonder whether other noble Lords share my anxiety that Euro-scepticism is bad for British business. After all, if we constantly carp that Europe is a difficult place to do business, a market where only the Brits play to the rules, a region where they are adopting a new currency just to bamboozle the poor Brits, we cannot be surprised if the net effect of this pall of scepticism dilutes, diminishes and dampens the enthusiasm of any but the most assiduous British entrepreneur. If we remain semi-detached about Europe, can we blame our business people for staying in the suburbs, eschewing the centre of Europe and its single market? My Lords, loose talk costs jobs.
As the world's markets become global, so have regional groups sprouted—NAFTA, ASEAN, AFTA, Mercosur and the EU itself. Were we to secede, would Britain's voice be heard in these courts'? Of course not. We throw away our friendships at peril.
Finally, the Bill's sponsors focus on Britain's security status as well as its economic well-being. Here, exit from the European Union would be problematic. It would certainly be deplored by our NATO partners. As the Prime Minister recently asserted, the European Union has already helped make Britain safer than at any time in our history. So familiar have we become with peace within the European Union borders that we are in danger of forgetting its source and inspiration; the European Union.
Withdrawal from the EU is not an option; it is an opt-out. It is an opt-out of responsibility that we owe to our continental partners, our Commonwealth colleagues, our transatlantic cousins and, most of all, to our own citizens who want and are getting a sensible nation sensibly led.
11.34 a.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for having instituted the debate through the introduction of his Bill. There is one point—and it may be the only point—on which I agree with him. This country deserves to have the fullest possible debate about an issue that will affect its future more than anything else we discuss in Parliament. We on these Benches are delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in the Chamber. She brings both standing and honour to the debate. I may not agree with her on many issues, but I speak with respect.
I turn to the Bill and comment briefly on the proposed committee. The Bill is a recipe for what one might describe as "total stalemate". I am not against a committee to consider the implications of withdrawal. That will largely benefit those of us who strongly argue for staying in the EU. However, I fear that the Bill as it stands would introduce a procedure which could go no further.
1814
One of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, strongly underlined in his excellent speech—and I could not agree with him more—is that the issue is about whether the United Kingdom is part of a globalised world, influencing it, helping to lead it and bringing its best traditions to bear upon it. I fear that withdrawal from the EU would constitute a decision to stop the world and try to get off. It is wholly unrealistic in today's world—a world in which we see time and again countries agreeing to allow a part of their sovereignty to be pooled in an international body.
We frequently speak about the EU as though it were unique in that respect. But, unquestionably, some pooling of sovereignty is involved in NATO, an organisation which is supported by Members in all parts of the House. Unquestionably, a considerable sacrifice of sovereignty is involved in the World Trade Organisation, of which this country is a member and which many other countries seek to join. Unquestionably, there is some sacrifice of sovereignty in support for the International Criminal Court, which, as regards crimes against humanity, is set above all other national courts. And there is obviously some sacrifice of sovereignty in trying to establish a world of human rights, which I believe most Members of this House and of another place powerfully support. You cannot establish a world of law, human respect and civilisation unless you are prepared to accept the existence and strengthening of global institutions.
I turn to the specific issue of the EU. I want to pick up a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, which I found utterly surprising. He said that the EU was dangerous for peace and went on to extol the importance of democracy. Let us be quite precise: the European Community and its successor, the European Union, has been one of the major forces for democratisation in Europe. Spain, Greece and Portugal were all dictatorships but entered the European Community specifically saying that they did so because they believed it would be a great support for democracy. Greece knew that it could join only if it got rid of the colonels—and it got rid of the colonels.
There is no question but that enlargement is about stabilising the fragile democracies of central and eastern Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, so eloquently said, a queue of countries throughout central and eastern Europe is attempting to join the EU. In that queue are countries such as Russia and the Ukraine, each talking of its ultimate goal being to join the EU. How strange that, at a time when countries which desperately need stability and peace wish to join the Union, some in this country are talking about leaving it as if we somehow want to put our responsibility behind us and live in a world that has gone.
I turn from that to say a few words about the economic situation and perhaps to mention that the alternative offered to us—the North Atlantic Free Trade Association—is, of course, a single currency area. It has a currency called the dollar. Were we to join it, we would be in a single currency area just as

1815
certainly as we would in the European Union by voting for the euro. However, that sacrifice of sovereignty does not seem to trouble our Euro-sceptics.
Similarly, it does not seem to trouble our Eurosceptics that some members of a body called the International Trade Commission have been sent to the UK by the United States Senate's finance committee to investigate whether or not Britain should join NAFTA and leave the European Union. Its terms of reference do not mention even a single basic truth: that to join NAFTA one has to leave the European Union. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I have in front of me the statistics from the Office for National Statistics pink book for 1999, which gives the figure for the EU share of total trade in goods and services as 52.7 per cent against 15.5 per cent for the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, suddenly and rather unexpectedly threw investment into his equation, which, of course, made the figures look rather different from those broadly published by all official sources.
I say one other word about this because we on these Benches are not frightened of mentioning the euro. We believe that the euro would assist this country very greatly were we to join it by reducing interest rates and by bringing about stability of exchange rates. We do not fail to recognise that the over-valued pound, to which Euro-sceptics pay such colossal attention on a symbolic basis, goes a very long way to make the lives of British farmers and British manufacturing exporters increasingly difficult. Some of our firms simply cannot compete on the basis of the present level of sterling, which is itself a false level in terms of representing economic strength.
I turn to the economy. We now lecture the European Union about adopting a more flexible and more adaptable economy. Yes, those are the right words: more flexible and more adaptable. However, at the Lisbon summit at the weekend where we shall be lecturing other European countries about flexibility and adaptability, they will have some right to lecture us on two other aspects of our economy. The first is the major shortage of intermediate skills. In its study of the European economy, Business, Britain and Europe, Andersen Consulting points out as one of our greatest weaknesses the fact that our workforce has a consistently lower level of skills than almost all our European competitors.
The other great weakness to which it draws attention is that the productivity of the United Kingdom consistently remains below that of France and Germany. One never hears the Euro-sceptics mention that. They present Germany as a totally sclerotic, out-of-date, unfashionable economy, and France as a ludicrously state-controlled one. Again, it is worth pointing out that in both those countries productivity and the level of skills considerably exceed our own.
I conclude by looking at the broad argument about comparative models of society between what the right of the Conservative Party now refer to as the so-called "Anglo-Saxon model" by which they mean the United
1816
Kingdom and the United States, and, on the other hand, the depressed, gloomy, backward model of the European Union. Of course, there are ways in which the European Union should change and we should encourage it to do so.
Perhaps I may also point out that on a day when your Lordships debate this Bill, the Independent has published an article headed:
"UK is now worst place in Europe to be growing up".
It points out that one in five children in the United States live in poverty compared to one in three in the United Kingdom, that our pensions represent one-third of average wages compared with 70 per cent in Germany and 50 per cent in France, and that the opportunities for children growing up in our society are less than in most other advanced European countries. On such a day, I believe that one should ask what kind of model we want. On these Benches we want a model of an efficient, free market economy, coupled with a society which is fair and just, which does not accept vast inequalities in opportunity and in social provision, and which we believe is very well represented by the European model.
I beg to say that we would have no objection to setting up a committee, but a very different one from that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. As does the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, we believe that leaving the European Union would be an utter disaster for this country and would represent an attempt to escape from our future for the sake of our history.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is always daunting to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I do not always agree with what she says and, for the most part, I did not on this occasion. However, she always says it quite brilliantly.
This is a modest Bill. If enacted, it would not in itself have any effect on Britain's external relations. Yet, at the same time, I submit that it is a vitally necessary Bill. It was revealed in the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday that the European Commission now tacitly regards joining EMU and adopting the euro as a compulsory component of EU membership. That was confirmed the following day by Commissioner Pedro Solbes, who told Danish journalists in Strasbourg that:
"Part-time membership of the EU is not good enough",
and that:
"In the longer term it's not possible to be in the Union and outside EMU".
Over the next two or three years, we can expect this particular gauntlet to be flung down with increasing frequency and decreasing dissimulation. That has profound implications for Britain, given that the British electorate seem fairly certain to reject scrapping the pound in the referendum which we have been promised. It would be totally irresponsible for any government to fail to make contingency plans in the event of such a rejection. However, it would be even more irresponsible, as well as thoroughly dishonest, to try to influence the result of the

1817
referendum by running a last minute scare campaign to try to panic the public into switching round and voting "yes". However, if this Bill is enacted, such a scare campaign could never succeed: the measured, balanced, undramatic truth would already be on record.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, reminded us, polls consistently show that the British public do not want to join a single currency but they do want to stay in the EU. Why? Not because they approve of the EU's destruction of our fishing industry, the ruination of our dairy farmers, slaughter houses and the London art market or the constant interference in the nooks and crannies of our everyday life, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, put it so well when he was Minister in another place. No; it is because of a vague and unfocused fear of the consequences of regaining national independence—a fear which is cynically encouraged and fostered by the integrationists.
Two big lies are employed. The first is the one successfully employed in 1975: that withdrawal would lead to mass unemployment and poverty. Today, we are told that 3 million jobs depend on our remaining in "Europe", by which I believe is meant the EU. That is about as economical with the truth as it is possible to be. I believe that the true figure is approximately 15,000 jobs, but other noble Lords will doubtless return to that point. I give one small example: Norway and Switzerland export almost exactly the same proportion of their output to the other 14 EU countries as we do, yet, of course, neither of those two countries is within the Union.
The second and worse big lie is that only the EU saved us from a third world war, that the EEC, with NATO nowhere to be seen, saved western Europe from Soviet aggression, and that the success of the EU alone prevents democratic European countries invading one another today. What utter rubbish, and historically ignorant rubbish at that!
Historically, most wars are either conflicts between empires and grand alliances at one extreme or civil wars at the other extreme. Millions and millions of people have died horribly in civil wars all over the world in the 20th century. Wars between younger nation states, such as that between Iran and Iraq, are a relative rarity, and wars between middle-aged, middle-class democracies are almost non-existent.
Even 30 or 40 years ago, when western Europe was both younger statistically and less bourgeois than it is today, that still held good. What sort of conflict do the scaremongers envisage—a repetition of the Icelandic cod war, perhaps?
Let us take one specific example. There was considerable tension between Austria and Italy between 1956 and about 1963 over the alleged maltreatment of the German- speaking minority in Alto Aldige, otherwise known as the Sad Tirol. This led to fierce words and fierce actions: electricity pylons were blown up, and so on, and there were impassioned debates at the United Nations. The problem was solved by traditional, conventional, diplomacy with
1818
compromises made on both sides over a period of years, without any assistance from the embryonic EEC.
Incidentally, Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians are scarcely treated any better by Spain today than they were before Spain was admitted to the EEC. So much for the harmony and friendship that the organisation was meant to engender between its members!
While I am on the subject of the Iberian peninsula, may I tell the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that democracy arrived in Portugal not because Portugal wanted to join the EEC, as it was then, but because the Portuguese were fed up with paying the massive costs of the wars in Angola and Mozambique, and overthrew the government for that reason. Similarly, Spain did not get rid of Franco over a longer period of time specifically because it wanted to join the EU. Greece may be different; I do not know about Greece. But certainly I think the noble Baroness has it slightly wrong with regard to the two Iberian countries.
There is one more Euro-myth that needs to be knocked on the head. It is not a big lie, because I think it arises from a genuine misapprehension. It concerns the common agricultural policy, recently described by one noble Lord, who is not in his place, Lord Inglewood—a distinguished MEP and by no means a Euro-sceptic—as notorious and an economic nonsense. The myth is that if the United Kingdom had joined the EEC at the outset, the CAP would have been utterly different, that far from being economic nonsense it would have been benign and economically prudent.
That is to misunderstand the whole purpose of the CAP. It had practically nothing to do with the attainment of agricultural efficiency. France's hidden agenda was to prevent its millions of peasant farmers becoming impoverished and bankrupt, being driven off their smallholdings and drifting, destitute and embittered, into the large cities, where they would have been easy recruits for the Communist Party, which at that time was extremely successful, attracting almost 40 per cent of the French vote.
In that objective the CAP was extremely successful. About 83 per cent of French farmers have indeed left the land, but they have done so over a 40-year period, giving plenty of time for those dispossessed to find jobs elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Communist vote in France was successfully contained. So the CAP was extremely successful from the French point of view. But this French imperative ensured that British interests could never have been accommodated.
I agree with the noble Baroness to this extent: there are advantages in being part of a larger grouping when, for example, negotiating trade agreements with the hard men of the United States. My ideal, the ideal of millions of people in this country and I suspect millions of ordinary people on the continent of Europe, as distinct from the continental establishments, is to remain in a looser, more relaxed, less interfering, less regulated, less control-freakish EU, with the frontiers of the iniquitous acquis communautaire rolled back. But if that ideal is

1819
frustrated by the unrepresentative continental elites, as one suspects it will be, and the UK decides that withdrawal is for us—not necessarily for the others—the least bad option, can the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, confirm in winding up that that will in no way affect our membership of the EEA, from which we shall continue to benefit for as long as we choose?
11.55 a.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I start by apologising for the probability that I shall be unable to stay for the end of the debate, which seems likely to run for some time. I have to be on the Any Questions programme in Birmingham this evening, but I shall stay as long as I can.
It is a pleasure for me also to be speaking alongside my noble friend Lady Thatcher on an issue on which for 15 years we were together—if not always in close partnership, certainly in partnership. Our views may now have diverged rather further apart than they were then, but I nevertheless welcome the opportunity.
I proceed from that to question the wisdom of the proposal underlying the Bill, eloquently presented by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, of investing even a modest amount of public money in the search for an objective conclusion within three or four months to an issue that has been the subject not of no debate, but of intense and active debate almost throughout my political life. The debate may never have matched our aspirations, but that it has taken place is beyond doubt.
I would argue against the wisdom of putting even a modest amount of public money into the pursuit of my noble friend's well argued private prejudice, because not one of the major parties in this country is not in favour of continued membership of the European Union. The Conservative Party may appeal to some people because it appears to stand for something different; the position of my party is "In Europe, but not run by Europe". We can argue about what "run by Europe" means, but "In Europe" is beyond doubt and has been reaffirmed many times by the leader of our party. We all agree on that, with the exception of the much smaller number on whose behalf my noble friend speaks.
The question is: Why are we in Europe, and why should we stay in Europe? Virtually everyone agrees that we need to be there, and benefit from being there because of the existence of the single market. If one looks at that for just one second, and goes back to the original structure of the union, one sees that, to make that market effective, it needs a set of common rules, commonly administered, and commonly adjudicated. I have quoted more than once in the House the Institute of International Freedom pamphlet, with an eloquent foreword by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, setting out exactly why we need, in the view of that pamphlet, not just to have a legal system, but a stronger, more effective competition policy adjudicated upon by a more effective court.
1820
If one needs further evidence, one can look at the way in which the BSE argument has gone. People tend to overlook that, although British beef has been excluded from the European Union, it is the only part of the world in which we can reverse and redress that pattern. The last figure that I have is that 47 countries outside the European Union will not accept British beef. They include Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States, in respect of which there is nothing that we can invoke. In the European Union, though the wheels of the law are grinding slowly, we have European Community law, with which 13 out of 15 member states are now complying, and with which Germany may well comply today. The pressure is on, and that is because we are part of a single enforceable market, which we cannot have elsewhere.
Moreover, it is a market in which we have ourselves deliberately extended our ability to influence the rules made there. When my noble friend Lady Thatcher and I committed ourselves in 1985 to the Single European Act, we did so in order to make the single market come into existence more quickly. We needed to extend majority voting to areas such as, for example, insurance, where other partners were not accepting the consequences. Of course, there was a hazard that in some areas it would not always work to our advantage. Let us look at the number of times in the last year, where records are available, that we were outvoted by qualified majority voting. In 1998 Italy was outvoted 13 times; the Netherlands were outvoted 15 times; Germany was outvoted 18 times; and we were outvoted only twice because we did not need to exercise our opposition. More often than not, we were on the side of the qualified majority which was prevailing. That is a sensible way to run it.
Other noble Lords have already mentioned the extent to which our membership of the Union is crucial to our influence on world trade policy. We exercise influence, not, perhaps, as much as we should like, in achieving a liberal trading policy for the European Union itself and in persuading our less liberal partners to accept our arguments in the direction of a free trade world. We are able to mobilise the authority of the group of countries which comprises the Union in curbing illiberalism in other countries. When my noble friend Lord Brittan was vice-president of the Union, he went many times, representing not just Europe but ourselves, to seek better results in the United States in relation to the trade negotiations then taking place.
We also respect our friendship and partnership with the United States, but there are occasions when we need to challenge its economic power. If one looks, for example, at the sanctions still being imposed in relation to European countries seeking to trade with Cuba, we had to challenge that legislation and we should not have been able to do that and secure the changes which we did had it not been for the support of a wider European Union.
And the same is true in relation to aid policies for ACP countries and the extent to which we have been able to argue, although not as successfully as I should like, for the banana producers of the Caribbean

1821
region. Our strength there was not sufficient. But our management of the ACP programme more widely has depended upon our membership of the European Union.
And so it is true in the broader foreign policy field as well. Noble Lords have already mentioned the case for enlargement and the case for consolidating democracy in the still emergent democracies of eastern and central Europe beyond what has already happened in the Iberian Peninsula. There too we benefit politically from our influence through the Union in that respect. If one looks at Russia as it is today, it may be too soon to reach the conclusion that our relations with that still large neighbour can safely be left to relations outside the European Union. We need to be able to mobilise the political influence of the European Union in presenting a sensible policy towards the difficult problems of the former Soviet Union.
Finally, on a wider scale, let us look at the Pacific and the relations between our European continent, the emerging economy of China and the existing economy of Japan. The most important observation that I have heard from any Japanese statesman was made to me by Prime Minister Kaifu some years ago when he said, "You must understand that Japan regards her relationship with Britain as the keystone of her relationship with the European arch". Our influence depends upon our participation in that organisation.
And so too likewise is the case in respect of the automobile industry. Despite the tragedy now likely to overtake Rover—what we used to call British Leyland—our car production is higher now than in any year since 1973 and it is reaching those levels because, thanks to the attractiveness of our economy to Japanese investors, we have been able to benefit from that inward investment. We are able to boast that Nissan in Sunderland is the most productive automobile plant in Europe. So in all those ways, we have greater influence for the benefit of the British people inside rather than outside.
One factor that I just touch on—I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams said—is the issue of the euro. One of the hazards that has been threatening the prosperity of BMW's investment in Rover has certainly been the divergence in exchange rates since that time. Some people talk about control of one's currency as being the most sovereign aspect of a nation's self-governance. But my noble friend Lady Thatcher will remember that during our time together, the pound sterling fluctuated from about 2.45 against the dollar to near parity with the dollar. We could not buck the market in those days any more than we can now, and we suffered from that instability of our exchange rate with the rest of the world. We shall continue to do so in relation to Europe as long as we decline the opportunity of joining the euro.
Finally, if those are the advantages which we have gained from our membership of the European Union, what would be the message that it would give to the world and to our own people if we were to get up and quit, which is the objective of my noble friend's
1822
proposition? It would look like a withdrawal from all those areas in which Britain for centuries has sought to influence foreign, trade and economic policy around the world. It would not look like an enhancement and enlargement of our aspirations for the sake of this country. It would look like an abdication from the roles which we are well qualified to play—and better qualified to play within the European Union.
12.5 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. I venture to say that he is living in a different world from most of us. He is an optimist, and there can be no reproach for that. There is enough pessimism in the world, so his very upbeat address to us was extremely refreshing.
The whole trouble is that he assumed a priori that it was possible for any British government of any political persuasion to do what they want anyway. If the British Government had the power to do some of the things that have been talked about this morning, there would be very little problem for any of us, but the trouble is they do not have that power. The major part of decision-making in this country has now been abdicated to Brussels. The role that we can play is very limited indeed.
In due course, I hope to be able to persuade my noble friend Lord Harrison of some of the wisdom that I shall venture to inflict upon your Lordships, but in the meantime, we must deal with what we have. The debate last week proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the common agricultural policy, which is the largest budgetary item in the European budget of 1,801 pages, is no good.
I want to address myself to the practicalities of the situation. We can either go on bandying opinions as to who is responsible for what or we can do something about it. I have a few suggestions to make to your Lordships about the way in which we should proceed in the current circumstances.
The first thing we should do, which we can still do, is to repatriate the common agricultural policy into the United Kingdom and make the United Kingdom responsible for its own people. It must not do that without regard to our colleagues on the Continent, or our friends on the Continent, whoever they may be. I can envisage a repatriation of farm support to the United Kingdom. I can also envisage conversations taking place with our colleagues in the European Union as to the way in which we could possibly give them financial support if they would suffer unduly from our repatriation policy. After all, that would be consistent with the British attitude towards friends.
It is not as though we are without funds. Every year we pay £2 billion net into the European Union after taking into account all the receipts and taking fully into account our abatement. So if we are to ease the passage of transferring the common agricultural policy back to the United Kingdom—and I assure your Lordships that very few farmers will argue with me about that—we can do it in terms of the utmost

1823
friendship and co-operation with Europe. We are quite capable, out of the net sum which we already pay into Europe, to find the funds necessary for us to arrive at a fair settlement for what, after all, would be a rupture of policy. I consider that to be a practical proposition.
There are, of course, a number of other things we can do. We can stop completely the flood of regulations, directives, decisions and so on from the Commission itself. Let us not be under any illusion about the results of the plan. I have before me a document published by the European Scrutiny Committee of the other place, dated 9th March. That committee is thoroughly congested. It cannot deal with all the matters coming to it. Altogether, some 95 items which have already been considered by the committee require further information from the Government—information going back to questions raised by the committee from 1995–99, the overwhelming mass of which were from 1999. They have not yet been able to deal with them. That is not a sign of a smooth working machine.
But of course that is the oldest dodge in the world by unelected civil servants. My noble friend Lord Harrison will appreciate that if one wants to rule, one floods those ultimately responsible with documents one knows they will be unable to read. That is exactly what has happened in the United Kingdom. Regulation after regulation has come out of the unelected Commission. There is no sign of any abatement. But there is no sign either that Ministers—even the Ministers in my party, who are of course all geniuses—have mastered them either. They cannot; the flood is too great. The result is that the matter goes by default and regulation after regulation—including the treaty of 1972—goes straight into British law without any effective scrutiny by either this House or the other place in particular.
It is not generally realised that the European budget, which amounts to billions of pounds, at one time used to undergo scrutiny in the other place. It even used to receive constructive scrutiny—I often say more constructive scrutiny—in this House. What happened to the last budget? It received no scrutiny at all. It went through without any real debate. We are not talking of small sums, but of a budget to which, as I said, Britain contributes between £2 billion and £3 billion every year net after all receipts.
But the matter is even worse than that. Under whose control is the money when it is sent from this country? It is under the control of the Commission. I have not heard anyone this afternoon in favour of an abject subservience to the Commission in Brussels. I have not heard any reference to the inquiry into its activities last year. All that has passed away as though we are in the presence of a Commission governing Europe—and, to a large extent, ourselves—whose reputation lies in the dust as being corrupt to the core.
Do not let anyone doubt my sincerity. During the war I spent much of six years—a large portion of my adult life—in France to liberate people who behaved so disgracefully. But from the recent press reports outlining the activities of Herr Kohl and Monsieur
1824
Mitterrand, it is quite clear that not only have there been corrupt dealings by the Commission itself, but also by the French and German Governments in the way in which they have raised party funds.
Are we going to lie down and take that? I do not know what has happened to people in the United Kingdom, uttering pious platitudes concerning those very bodies, holding them up to be the last word in conventional wisdom. That is no good; it will not do. We are not in any hurry—the war took six years, after all—except that the Commission wants to railroad us into one impasse after another in order to increase its own power. It has done so by a progressive application of qualified majority voting. I always believed that cooperation between member states was an extremely good thing. Anyone who considers the problem of pollution in Europe as a whole knows perfectly well that such matters—there are many others—must be dealt with across all boundaries. There are many more issues: certain sections of transport, communications and so on. There is of course a role for the countries of Europe acting in concert by co-operation with one another, not by orders from the European Commission.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships followed the Maastricht Treaty negotiations. The then Prime Minister came back claiming that he had won game, set and match. It was only when we came to the Edinburgh conference which followed almost immediately thereafter that we knew exactly what the score was. In the communiqué inserted by the Commission itself—council communiqués are probably all written by the Commission originally—appeared the following words:
"In more general terms the Commission is intending to use its monopoly of the right of initiative by declining to accept requests made by the Council at informal meetings that it make proposals for Directives. In the same spirit it will be tougher about rejecting amendments proposed by the Council and Parliament that run counter to the proportionality rule or would unnecessarily complicate Directives or Recommendations that are in fact justified under the need-for-action criterion".
That is the Commission defying the Council of Ministers, largely unnoticed. Only people who read the documents knew that that communiqué existed. My noble friend Lord Harrison probably has not yet seen the document. I shall provide him with a copy. It shows the degree to which the Commission has taken control and intends to take even more control.
To be fair to the Government, the Cabinet Office has taken certain actions which have been extremely welcome to me. It has brought out The Guide to Better European Regulation. It has no reference number, so it is difficult to reorder, and no date. Nevertheless, I am persuaded that it is an authentic document. It tells civil servants the way in which they should go about dealing with proposed European legislation. I shall commend it to those of your Lordships who have a sense of humour. But since all of your Lordships have a sense of humour, I presume that the demand on the Printed Paper Office will be considerable. Noble Lords should read it. It advocates that in all cases where proposed regulations have an effect on the UK, civil servants should prepare a regulatory impact assessment.

1825
I believe there have been 64 so far. I do not know how many have been placed in the Library. All that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, asks for is an impact assessment of the present situation. That should not be too much strain.
My time is up. I commend to my colleagues, as I have pleasure in commending to the House, a philosophical dictum pronounced by the leader of my party, whom I entirely support in this matter. At a meeting of the Scottish Parliament he enunciated the principle, with which I am in full agreement, that;
"Scepticism is healthy. Cynicism is corrosive".
As regards my own part in this matter, I trust that your Lordships may be constrained to find that my leader and I are in complete accord on that philosophy.
12.21 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in my contribution to this important debate, so vigorously introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I wish to concentrate on the single market with particular regard to the ways in which it has developed over the years and the British contribution to that development. At the end of my remarks I shall compare the single market as it now exists with the proposal for a loose free-trade arrangement, such as proposed by certain noble Lords.
My connections with the European Union, as it is now known, go back a long way. I was a member of the UK delegation to the High Authority of the European Coal & Steel Community (ECSC) from 1952 to 1956. Subsequently, I was president of the Consultative Committee of the ECSC and, in later years, took part in many discussions on energy and industrial policy.
The single market as we now know it was originally set up under the terms of the Treaty of Paris 1951 and applied to coal and steel. It was a customs union. Within that customs union, the impediments, and particularly any tariffs affecting those products, were intended to be removed and a common external tariff established. That was broadened under the Treaty of Rome 1957 when the European Economic Community was set up and this concept was applied to all goods, services and the movement of people.
The first step was to establish the common external tariff and to remove internal tariffs. That was relatively easy to do. The external tariff around the single market has much diminished over the years as a result of world trade negotiations. What emerged, however, and has been much more difficult to deal with, in order to enable trade to move freely within the area—goods, services, people and capital—was the multiplicity of non-tariff barriers. As the tariff barriers were removed, the natural instinct of countries, which always tend to be protective of their own interests, was to establish non-tariff barriers. Those took a variety of forms: health regulations; standards regulations; technical regulations; statistical requirements and bureaucratic delays at frontiers. So, although the tariffs were removed, the trade was not moving very freely. That situation became increasingly apparent.
1826
In 1985 an important initiative was taken to prepare a White Paper which set out all the non-tariff impediments. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, as the Commissioner then responsible for trade, set that up and vigorously undertook the work. That was a major British contribution to the way in which the single market developed.
The problem about removing the non-tariff barriers was that with the unanimity rule, the right of veto, it was virtually impossible, on a large scale, to get countries to agree to eliminate the barriers which they had erected. That was the reason for the Single European Act; namely, to introduce in connection with the single market the qualified majority voting principle.
From that point on, progress was vigorous. The objective was to achieve all the detailed tasks set out in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, by the end of 1992. By that date, about 90 per cent of the regulations had been passed by the European Council. What remained to be done was for those rules to be converted into state regulations: the transposition of the European regulations into state regulations. That was largely achieved by 1998.
We now have a situation in which, as a result of many years' effort, there is in the European Union a single market which goes beyond just the removal of tariff barriers, which have reduced in importance because of world trade negotiations. It has carefully analysed what other impediments to trade exist and progressively removed them. That is a unique development.
In the course of those developments, two areas of great importance were left out for special treatment; namely, telecommunications and energy. In the case of telecommunications, with the one exception of Britain, which had established an open market, the rest of the European Union had a closed market with national monopolies regulating the whole operation.
A consultative document was introduced in 1987 leading to effective deregulation by 1998. We now have a much freer telecommunications market within the European Union which coincidentally came about at the same time as the enormous development of the Internet. As a result of that, many cross-border mergers have been made. We now have, throughout the whole of that single market, a free, competitive market in telecommunications which is totally different from that which existed a few years ago.
As regards energy, particularly gas and electricity, apart from Britain the other markets were very much controlled by state monopolies. The British example led to a consultative document being prepared in each case and eventually the start of deregulation in the other member countries. Within the next few years, at least one-third of those markets will be deregulated. It has taken longer to get that moving than in the case of telecommunications, but as a result of the initial steps taken in both gas and electricity, it is generally felt that the process will move quicker than the legislation proposes.

1827
So we can see that the development of the concept of a single market, which was started by the elimination of tariff barriers, has led to the careful analysis of other ways in which trade can be impeded, has worked out a system—largely under British initiatives—which could eliminate those barriers and has tackled two prime areas where national monopolies prevented a free market; namely, telecommunications and energy.
I should like to compare this situation, in which British thought and British experience have played such a large part, with the concept of the loose, free trade area referred to by certain noble Lords as an alternative. Some 40 years ago, we had experience of a free trade area. That had to be abandoned because it was felt that the single market concept—the Common Market, as it was then known—tackled the problem of trade interchanges and the freedom of movement of capital and people more effectively. One by one, the members of EFTA joined the common market and the European Community, as they were then known.
I do not see how, as a nation, we could conceivably benefit from withdrawing from the single market, which is now a highly sophisticated market to which we have substantially contributed. It has reached down to the roots of how to secure really free trade between countries on a fair basis. We could not replace that with the kind of arrangement—the loose, free trade area—which we attempted some 40 years ago. That really would be putting the clock back.
12.31 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we owe much to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for this timely debate. I should like to echo others in saying how very pleased I am to see that we have the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, with us today.
When President Coolidge was asked what he thought of sin, he replied, "I am against it". That is my position on the way the European Union operates today, though not the Union itself. I recognise that it is impossible for us to withdraw, but I believe that we should not go one step further towards integration and that we should use every effort to secure a serious increase in subsidiarity. Above all, we should resist being drawn into a supranational federal union, though we must go on being active members of the inter-governmental Union as it is today. It must not move further in the supranational direction.
What advantage is there in becoming neutered politically, as we should be if we joined the euro and gave up control over our own power to decide how to spend our money and what resources we need to commit to defence and foreign policy? I am concerned about the developing powers of the common foreign and security policy. It is a foreign policy based on the principle of the lowest common denominator and would not be of much use. I would not dream of discussing the details of foreign policy in the presence of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, but it seems to me that foreign policy is
1828
essentially an individual, discrete affair, resting on good diplomacy, conducted largely in private and on good intelligence of the undisclosed intentions of the countries, friend or foe, with whom we must negotiate. That cannot be done in concert with 20 other countries whose vital national interests could be quite different.
Of course it is possible to reach common positions—though rather rarely—but it can often be against our national interest. Our recognition of Croatia, expressly to please the Germans and the EU, was a classic example which eventually led to the involvement of Europe in the Bosnian conflict. By our own national criteria for recognition, Croatia simply did not qualify.
If and when a referendum is held on joining the euro, it will be extremely important to have a balanced and well-researched statement on both the advantages and disadvantages. To that extent, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Pearson. But I do not believe that the alternatives for us are either to join the euro or to withdraw from the Union. We should spend the next two or three years exerting all the influence the Government claim we possess to secure more subsidiarity and more transparency and to stop the EU creating any more groups, common strategies, action plans, special programmes, bench-marking schemes, European social law, new paradigms and dimensions, high-level fora, monitoring panels and Cologne, Cardiff and now Lisbon processes. I entirely agree with the noble Lord who I still determinedly call "my noble friend", Lord Bruce of Donington.
Far from doing less and doing it better, every Council seems to create more new bodies and more tasks best left at national level. The members of the EU are, after all, very different peoples, and with enlargement there will be yet greater variation. The strength of the Union ought to lie in diversity, not uniformity.
However, others, including the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, have delivered devastating attacks on fiscal management, so I shall not say anything about that. Unfortunately, neither insistence on subsidiarity nor measures intended to ensure that our money is better spent will work unless there is adequate scrutiny by national parliaments. The sheer weight of paper coming out of Brussels has made it impossible to keep an effective check and, no doubt, to brief Ministers in time before they make disastrous decisions. This is another reason for telling the Commission that it must stop, consolidate and apply subsidiarity. Even a little benign neglect would be very welcome.
But my chief concern is the new defence initiative. It was agreed at Helsinki that by 2003 the member states should be able to deploy and sustain operations in peacekeeping, conflict prevention and crisis management in operations involving up to 60,000 men, all within 60 days and some much earlier. These operations are to be self-sustaining, with the necessary command, control and intelligence capabilities, logistics and, where necessary, naval and air support. All this has to be sustainable for at least a year, and there is to be capability in command and control,

1829
intelligence and strategic transport. There are plans for a European air transport command, strategic sea lift capacity, harmonisation of military requirements and the restructuring of European defence industries.
Decision-making will be by the Council. The objective is for the Union to have an autonomous capacity to take decisions and to launch and then conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises. All these measures will be in support of the common foreign and security policy and will, it has been said, reinforce and extend the Union's comprehensive external role. As the first step, new political and military bodies are to be established within the Council—more committees!—to enable the Union to take decisions on operations and to ensure the necessary political control and strategic direction. The Union is to have decision-making autonomy, a standing political and security committee, a military committee and military staff. When the Union launches an operation, there will be—wait for this—an ad hoc committee of contributors who will be set up for the day-to-day conduct of the operation. I wonder how many of our soldiers are having nightmares at the thought of that idea. Meanwhile, there is to be an inventory of national and collective resources, a database on assets and capabilities, a study of targets, a co-ordinating mechanism and the setting up of a rapid reaction fund.
According to the Government, from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs no less, we are not setting up a standing European army or military organisation but merely mechanisms by which the EU, in crisis management, can call on assets which member states have committed to NATO. At the same time, we will not duplicate or decouple from NATO. I shall be interested to see how that will be managed.
The European nations are setting a target of being able to put a corps in the field in 60 days and to sustain it for a year. According to Mr Cook, it all depends on access to NATO and WEU assets, and no one is focusing on money for defence. The Secretary of State has said that there will be none for our own Armed Forces. The important thing, according to what he said, is not what you are putting in, but what you are getting out. That is an extraordinarily good description of the present Government's attitude to defence. On the same occasion he admitted that Her Majesty's Government might at any time simultaneously receive a request for men and resources for a UN operation anywhere in the world. We are committed to that through the UN Memorandum of Understanding.
If the objective of all this is to ensure that the European nations, as well as Britain and France, do their fair share in future crisis management—which, on the face of it, seems a very good idea—surely, since it is admitted that it is NATO assets which are to be used, we could have conducted an audit through NATO without any of the vast infrastructure now being set up. There could have been a separate arrangement to cover the non-NATO EU members, none of them large countries.
1830
Mr. Cook gave one most telling statistic. Although there were more than 2 million men and women in uniform in Europe at the time of Kosovo, it was a struggle to get 2 per cent of that figure into Kosovo—and, incidentally, 700,000 of the 2 million are conscripts and therefore wholly unsuitable and probably unavailable. We also know that without US strategic air lift (let alone air power), no one could get those famous EU troops, other than ours and perhaps the French, to any crisis area. Finally, what could suit the Russians better than to probe NATO, for instance on the Balkan states, just when our double-hatted troops are known to be drawn off and bogged down in some EU adventure being run by a committee?
We must never forget that the prime task of our forces is defence. We must do nothing to weaken NATO's power to deter. To open the possibility that NATO troops could be involved in this sort of ridiculous charade is extremely frightening and extremely irresponsible.
The truth is that the EU has conned us into allowing what it always intended; that is, autonomy for the Union in the field of foreign and defence policy on the pretext that an audit would produce—instead of the usual two admirals and a stretcher-bearer each from everyone but ourselves and the French—a real serious military force. Even if it did, it would soon disappear under the weight of the EU committees running the war. That is why we must call a halt to the Union's strategy of emasculating nationhood. If ever there were two areas for subsidiarity and nothing but, it is in defence and foreign policy and in their essential weapon of intelligence.
There is reference in the papers on the Lisbon Council and on Helsinki suggesting the possible need for treaty amendment. That is slipped in very much at the last in a quiet little paragraph. We should ensure that any such amendments are fully debated in both Houses before any commitment is made. What I greatly fear is that, although we retain a veto on defence, we shall be trapped for political reasons into committing our over-stretched and under-resourced troops to a hopelessly badly run EU enterprise. For that reason, though I fully accept that we are in the Union to stay, by God we have got to make it better.
12.42 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I begin by saying how pleased I am to be able to follow such an excellent and perceptive speech. We have heard something which is well worth studying, and I am sure we all will when we read Hansard. Also, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on giving us this opportunity for a wide-ranging debate.
My attitude is that I am not at present in withdrawal mode. At present I am in favour of a committee of distinguished, independent people looking at where we are as a country. Where are we going at the beginning of this new century in terms of maximising our influence in the world in relation to defence, diplomatic influence, foreign policy and economic prosperity, not forgetting the preservation of our

1831
democracy? All those matters should be studied. We should not exclude withdrawal from the European Union if that is thought to be the best way to proceed. However, I would not begin at that point.
We have a serious year ahead of us and it is helpful to have this debate at the beginning. Europe may look very different by the end of this year. The important issue of enlargement will arise. I have no doubt that applications will proceed and the whole nature of the European Union will be in for profound change. It will be faced with a challenge so great that it may not be able to meet it.
So far we have had what I can only describe as trivial debate in relation to enlargement, in the sense that the only thing that has been seriously considered is the possible enlargement of the first five. What happened at the last Heads of Government Council was that the five became 11. This year the European Union will be considering the application not of the five but of the 11. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said of course others will come after, maybe even Russia itself; certainly the Ukraine; certainly the Caucasian CIS states; and certainly the remnants of old Yugoslavia. So we are not talking about an addition of five or six; not even of 11; but something of the order of 20. We must let that sink in and not allow the Government to bring forward the kind of trivial White Paper which they did on the IGC; one which looks at certain constitutional changes; which offers little niceties of touch such as perhaps sacrificing our second Commissioner or changing the weighted voting system in the Council of Ministers.
The real point of this issue is this. We have an opportunity of refashioning our relationships with Europe in a way that suits us and a large number of both applicants and members that we have not had before. We are uncomfortable in the European Union. We know that. Everyone who has had dealings with it has become increasingly aware that it does not quite fit us, perhaps because of our history and our connections way outside the European Continent. When I hear all this grovelling about what will happen to us, about shivering, shuddering Britain kept outside the European gate, I laugh. There are six continents in the world, not just one. We have now and always will have a considerable influence on the Continent across the Channel as long as we wish to exercise it. That should be the framework of thinking which should inform us.
Frankly, we have not begun to prepare for the enlargement process. We have not thought through the implications. To impose upon the applicant states the kind of rigidities which have developed over the past 20 years in Europe, including commitments to economic and monetary Union, is impossible. They cannot meet it. Because the costs are so great, they cannot even be included in the guaranteed prices of the common agricultural policy. We know that. Therefore, the whole approach has been dishonest and the costing in Agenda 2000 is irrelevant and absurd.
That is one point. The other is this. I am in favour of opening up trade with all those other countries and gradually incorporating as many of them as is possible,
1832
but the impact on existing members would be profoundly disquieting; and not merely the economic impact: the CAP would become impossible; the poor four would cease to be the poor four overnight. All those changes are bound to take place and the voting patterns would be intolerable. To be one of 21 or perhaps 30 states in the Council of Ministers having issues basic to our people and our democracy taken by majority vote is nonsense, and we know it is. We must make it clear that we will not have that.
When I say that it is a great opportunity, I mean just this. Two things have been absolutely fundamental to the whole post-war European drive. First, the federal dream of Mr. Monnet and the general loss of confidence in the nation state by the defeated, occupied, nearly ruined nations of Europe; secondly, the French national decision, both pre and post-De Gaulle, that it will create a cage for Germany so that it will never again be able to assault and defeat its neighbours. Those are the drives. It is fascinating that the Maastricht Treaty was preceded by, and, indeed, is largely the product of, the collapse of the Berlin Wall. The reunification of Germany sent a shudder through France in particular and in Brussels where Jacques Delors was ruling the roost. Kohl—the last German leader who had every reason to know about and to hate the past of his country—agreed with Mitterrand (perhaps, as we have heard, there was an exchange of other things as well) and with Delors to take this giant leap forward towards an integrated Europe. It was always there because that was part of the federal dream. That was what drove them forward.
I am sure that I do not just speak for myself when I say that, as far as we are concerned, if that is the will and the wish of the peoples of continental Europe, let them come together in however close an arrangement they wish to achieve. However, it is not the will and wish of the British people—we shall never accept this—who have their own history, dreams, connections and interests. However, we have the opportunity—goodness knows, the Amsterdam Treaty has given us this opportunity—of closer cooperation and flexibility. That is written into the treaty. Under that treaty some can go further forward than the rest, provided they do not damage the others. Let those who wish to do so use that provision and let us rejoice in that, but let us put these matters before our own people in a serious debate about how we can achieve at last satisfactory, permanent relations with our continental neighbours.
12.51 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and to the House. I may have to leave before the end of the debate as I have a long-standing engagement in the country.
Determination to put all our eggs in the European basket may have unfortunate results. As I came in on the Tube this morning I could not help reflecting that if Rover, instead of selling out to BMW, had stuck to its highly successful association with Honda, drawing

1833
on the Japanese habit of taking the long view in business, it might have avoided the disaster we are witnessing today.
I welcome the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and the eloquent and clear way in which he introduced it. Once again we have to thank him for giving us an opportunity to discuss one of the most important questions which face us—our relationship with the European Union.
This Bill, which requires an inquiry into the implications of our withdrawal from the European Union, is eminently sensible and, indeed, long overdue. My only feeling is that the Government ought to be doing such studies anyway without needing a Bill to prompt them to do so. Good staff work and administration require careful and thorough planning for all contingencies. My experience in the Foreign Office, now long ago, was that too often there was no plan B. Whatever ruled the roost, whether the Commonwealth or Europe, seemed to require total dedication. There was no fall-back position. I believe that that was, and always is, a mistake. We ought certainly to have a thorough study of the implications of withdrawal and of continued membership, and the studies should in due course be made public.
We need to know the full implications, not only of withdrawal, but of our being, in effect, ejected or asked to leave by the Commission and our partners. My noble friend Lord Monson referred to the remarks of Pedro Solbes, the commissioner in charge of economic and monetary union, that,
"in the longer term it is not possible to be in the Union and outside EMU".
It sounded as though, if the referendum on joining the euro resulted in a no vote, Mr Solbes and his colleagues might actually welcome getting rid of the ugly duckling.
I am always uneasy when the three main political parties agree, so snuffing out any organised opposition or thorough scrutiny. This happened repeatedly on Northern Ireland, so that we had a deeply flawed Good Friday agreement, with more than 300 terrorists released but no matching concessions required from the IRA. On Europe, the parties all seem to agree that leaving the EU is unthinkable. But none of them has been able to suggest how we can effectively resist being dragged into a single European state, which our people clearly do not want, or how to secure a more satisfactory relationship with Europe.
The fact is that our membership brings us little in the way of real benefits and many serious disadvantages. Bashing Britain seems to be the preferred option for most of our partners and certainly for the Commission. Let us consider for a moment the issue of the withholding tax. We know that this proposal came about because the Germans were unable to tackle their own tax evaders. So a tax was devised which would do serious harm to the City of London and, if applied, drive valuable trade out of the EU altogether. It is a clearly idiotic idea, yet all our partners put great pressure on us to agree to it.
1834
In November, in the debate on the Address, I spoke of the outrageous attitude of the French Government in refusing to admit British beef after the EU and its scientific advisers had pronounced it safe. Four months on we are still no further on and the Germans have joined in, although it now looks as if they may be having second thoughts. Our beef farmers continue to suffer. I hope we can ensure that if we win the legal case, they can be given massive compensation by the French Government. Yesterday we learned that even when our partners do vote with us on a compromise, as they did over droit de suite, the Commission is still attempting to put a spoke in the wheel. Its animosity to this country is extraordinary.
Noble Lords may have seen in the January issue of the House Magazine an article by Mr Titford, a UK Independence Party MEP, who has joined the Budget Committee in Europe. His article was interesting against the background—as he points out—that,
"the EU's auditors have refused to approve the EU's accounts for four years in a row".
He said of the Budget Committee:
"The voting procedures are bizarre. Usually, our assistants are only able to provide us with details about what we are to vote on a mere hour before each session starts, having had to translate them from French! Then we are often asked to vote on more than 60 matters within an hour. On one recent occasion I had to vote on no fewer than 360 items in the space of two hours 15 minutes—a new record, I am told! Most MEPs tell me they have no idea what they are voting for".
I believe that that goes a long way to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has told us today and on many previous occasions.
Yet our membership of this extraordinarily unsatisfactory organisation is enormously costly. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, pointed out, the Institute of Directors has worked out that in financial terms the costs exceed the benefits by around 15 billion a year. Why, then, do the Eurofanatics, as I call them, who include notable figures in all the political parties, continue to bang the drum for European integration? It is mysterious. I suppose that politicians and civil servants have invested so much hope and belief in this project that they cannot bear to see it fail. Despite the disgrace of the last Commission, the vast incidence of fraud, the resolute determination not to reform the CAP and the insults and humiliations to which our country is routinely subjected, they support it doggedly through thick and thin.
They cannot even bring themselves to tell the plain truth about the manifest aim of the Commission and the governments of continental countries: to create one country composed of numerous regions—not nation states—with national governments reduced to ciphers, with its capital at Brussels and the highest possible degree of centralisation, harmonisation and bureaucratic interference.
There is of course the argument about inevitability, that it is hopeless to resist the advance of the juggernaut. But one can never tell. No one foresaw the sudden collapse of the regime in South Africa, or of the

1835
Soviet empire, or of the collapse of the previous Commission. All seemed rock solid. The great integration project may be similarly fragile.
In my time at the Foreign Office, the guiding principle that directed all my days was the protection of British interests. Nowadays, that seems to be a rather old-fashioned concept. The EU has done enormous damage to British interests and appears to go on trying to undermine them. One has to think only of the CAP, the common fisheries policy, the withholding tax and the absurd level of bureaucratic regulation. Those of your Lordships who farm will know of the amazing proliferation of instructions sent out by Brussels, MAFF being today little more than a post office. In our small herd of cattle, we have had, on Brussels' instructions, to replace all the ear tags in the cows three times in a very short space, at considerable expense.
Once before there was this sort of meddlesome interference in Europe in the bad old days of the 16th century papacy: the result was the Reformation. I think that we may have to part company with the European Union, especially if our people reject the abolition of the pound, as I hope they will. I repeat what I said in November. We should begin working out positive alternatives to membership of the single European state, preserving the common market but opting out of the common agricultural policy—here I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—of the common fisheries policy, and of the jurisdiction of the Court. We should have no part in the drive to create a single state.
Although I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, I do not believe that it would be possible for us to prevent the drive towards a single state while remaining as we are as full members of the Union. I do not think that that would be practicable.
But a new relationship—perhaps not unlike those that Norway and Switzerland have at the moment with the European Union—could well result in a much better relationship with our European neighbours. I believe that such a course would be far more in tune with what our own people want and would be an exciting new chapter in our history.
1.2 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, like all other participants, I very much welcome this debate. There is a certain warm glow of nostalgia about it. I think that I first heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, nearly 40 years ago—like good wine, it has got better with age. However, I still maintain that his claim to have a finger on the pulse of British public opinion was wrong in the past and will be proved wrong in the future.
I am also pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in her seat. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, reminded us, our relations with Europe were more deeply cemented during her watch than even during the watch of Sir Edward Heath. There is a paradox here. We were reminded earlier in the week
1836
that the noble Baroness, when Minister of Education, abolished more grammar schools than any other Minister of Education. I am not making a cheap point; I make the point that office brings its own realities.
Opposition brings out the worst in politicians. Between 1966 and 1970, Labour would not take no for an answer; between 1970 and 1974, it was "No to Europe on Tory terms". Once back in office, it was able to recommend yes to a referendum; by 1981 it was arguing for withdrawal; and sometime during the 1980s—I can never pinpoint when—it returned to the European fold.
In the 50s the Conservative Party missed out on Messina—probably the biggest foreign policy mistake of the immediate post-war world—and then took us into Europe in 1973. It built on our membership in the 1980s and signed up for Maastricht. But now, in opposition, as again we have been reminded, it is "in Europe but not run by Europe". Successively in opposition, the main parties have chosen to appease their Eurosceptics with weasel words.
I very much welcome the honesty and openness of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in bringing forward this Bill and the way he has put it to us. It is honest in its ambitions—he wants us out of Europe. He argued with his usual charming combination of xenophobia, conspiracy theory and paranoia which have been a hallmark of his interventions. We have had the power-crazed bureaucrats, the CIA financing, the secret breakfasts and, in the end, who shot Jack de Mannio. All good stuff.
I cannot understand why the noble Lord did not complain about the massive campaign of disinformation on Europe which is currently being mounted by the foreign-owned British media. That is something that could well have been put in his lists of bogeymen and dangers.
When warning about the peace and prosperity that the noble Lord is so eager to demand, we have to pass over the fact—to put it at its most simple—that running parallel with this period of European cooperation and integration has been the most peaceful and prosperous period in European history. I do not claim that is all down to the European common market, but it is worth noting.
Basically, however, I agree with the noble Lord that we need a full, thorough and deep political debate. However, I do not think that this Bill provides the basis for it. I can tell him that a committee of inquiry such as he proposes will produce a split report. Why? QED this debate today. We can analyse and stack up figures as we may—goodness knows, he has now lodged so many papers in the Library that noble Lords have their reading for the Easter Recess already laid out for them—but this debate is like a science fiction programme I once saw which contained a time-warp television. In that programme, when one switched on the television one was back in whatever age one wanted to be in. It seems to me that the European debate—particularly in this House—is locked where it was when I first came into it in the early 60s, with a group of people arguing the "in" or "out" case. One

1837
still hears people saying, "I do not think we should join the Common Market", even when they are talking about the euro.
I looked today at a speech I made in March 1997—I am probably the only one of your Lordships who looks at my old speeches—and I said then:
"I do not believe that the Conservative Party is now capable of making the decisions that need to be made in the national interest on Europe".
I went on to say:
"Even more disturbing. I fear a failure of nerve by the Labour Party".
I think that is something which has worried me since the general election. Having gone into that election with very clear commitments on Europe, what we have had since are individual Ministers making carefully flagged-up pro-European speeches but no full-throttle campaign. The truth is that decisions on Europe have been put on the back burner in rather the same way as the future of British manufacturing industries. They have been sacrificed to that all-important objective, the second term.
Today's Bill is a distraction. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shore, that the Community is at a very important point of decision-making. The European Union has set itself tough targets. The launch of the euro and enlargement force challenges which are as great as any faced in Europe in half a century of cooperation; yet they are only part of the agenda for change. We on these Benches want change in Europe but this never-ending "in or out" debate debilitates the thrust for reform.
We believe that the commitment to enlargement is meaningless unless we envisage root-and-branch reform of the common agricultural policy. We cannot drive forward on economic and monetary union and ignore challenges such as organised crime, drug trafficking, terrorism and other issues covered by the Third Pillar of the Maastricht Treaty. There can be no single market that does not take account of trans-frontier issues threatening our environment.
Perhaps most importantly of all, Europe cannot continue to plan its foreign policy and its defence on the assumption that the United States will always pull our chestnuts out of the fire. I could not follow the logic of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. Is she really satisfied with the way that Europe responded to the disintegration of Yugoslavia? I thought that the hesitancy of political will—
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I actually said that I was dissatisfied with that.
Lord McNally: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is dissatisfied, she has got to will the ends as well as the means. The fact is that Yugoslavia is not just a problem on our doorstep but literally in our backyard, and over that problem Europe proved itself incapable, either individually or collectively, to respond to the threat. If one is raising hobgoblins about a united foreign policy and a united defence force, one has to say what the alternatives are. The alternative, quite
1838
frankly, is to close our eyes and pray that the Americans will come and bail us out. I do not think that is a strategy for Europe in the 21st century.
I remain optimistic—the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, talked about optimists—and I think that Europeans are optimists. The noble Lord, Lord Shore, mentioned Jean Monnet. I had the honour of working with Jean Monnet 25 years ago. In his memoirs he wrote:
"It is impossible to foresee today the decisions that could be taken in a new context tomorrow. The essential thing is to hold fast to the few fixed principles that have guided us since the beginning, gradually to create among Europeans the broadest common interest served by common democratic institutions to which the necessary sovereignty has been delegated".
Note the key words: "common interest", "democratic institutions" and "necessary sovereignty". Those who raise false fears of a bureaucratic superstate miss the intent of the Monnet dream, for he went on to write:
"Like our provinces in the past, our nations today must learn to live together under common rules and institutions freely arrived at"
I believe that in the last half of the last century we in western Europe settled the great issues of our time by speeches and majority resolutions, not by blood and iron. In so doing we set an example to the world of how we can become good neighbours to each other in meeting shared challenges. Just as important, that cooperation has enabled us to extend our democratic institutions to other parts of Europe. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I was in the Foreign Office in the mid-70s when Spain, Portugal and Greece returned to democracy. I tell him quite frankly—and the papers, when they are published, will show this—that it was the offer of membership of the EU that made the ruling elites in those countries put aside any thought that there could be a possibility of return to authoritarianism. At key points during the Portuguese and Spanish return to democracy, when democracy wobbled, it was the European Union which went in strong and firm and delivered democracy in Iberia. I believe that we have that opportunity—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has been expatiating on the virtues of democracy. Do we take it that it is his view that the European Commission is a democratic organisation, or a democratic institution?
Lord McNally: My Lords, rather like this place, it draws its strength from the will of democratic institutions, but, believe me, if anyone wants to join these Benches in making good the democratic deficit in Europe, they will find strong supporters here concerning the accountability and openness of the European Commission. As I said before, reformers will find strong support; destroyers will be opposed from these Benches. That is the difference. We are not afraid to say where the European Union has weaknesses and we want to see those reformed.
However, just as in Iberia, and as I think we can do in eastern Europe and in connection with our other backyard problem, the Mediterranean, the Europe

1839
that we are building can be an influence for peace, prosperity and good. My noble friend put it correctly. The policy that the other side has been putting today is not a case of, "Out of Europe to the open sea" but "Stop the world, we want to get off".
I am sorry that we shall not, by convention, have an opportunity to vote on this Bill today because I would have opposed it. However, I think that soon, as was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, we need to have a proper debate in this country. The truth is that since 1975, when the country decisively voted for Europe, things have changed—
A noble Lord: My Lords, it was for a common market.
Lord McNally: My Lords, Germany has reunited; the Soviet Empire has disintegrated; the world of globalisation and advanced technology has moved us into new challenges. All that convinces me that we need Europe more now than we did 25 years ago and, what is more, Europe needs us.
1.17 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, first perhaps I may pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for introducing this Bill. It is quite right that we should be debating these subjects in this House at this time. The definition of democracy put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I found difficult to follow. I shall read his speech to see what he actually said, but it struck me as a strange definition of democracy, coming from those Benches.
On the Bill itself, it is not a question of whether we should stay in or get out. Of course that is an important decision we shall have to make, but it is really asking the question: what are the implications of pulling out? The Bill proposes the setting up of an inquiry into what would be the consequences if we pulled out. I am somewhat surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that if the Bill was voted upon he would oppose it. I would have hoped that those Benches would have wished as much as the rest of the House to know the facts before we make a decision as to what we are to do.
The Bill is concerned with the implications if we should withdraw; for our economy, for our defence and for the constitution of the United Kingdom. Some suggest that those consequences might be severe; others that the consequences would be beneficial. I think it is important that we should try to get a balanced view of those alternatives before the electorate have to make an informed choice. There is far too much speculation—indeed we have heard some of it already today—as to what the consequences would be. Let us have a proper forum and an inquiry. If we should decide to commit ourselves further and irrevocably to Europe there is no exit. A decision to go further than we have already done or to withdraw is an important matter on which we should get all the information we can.
1840
No one would want to make blind such a vital choice to stay in or pull out, although, apparently, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, does not want to have this type of inquiry. I feel convinced that those who oppose the Bill would nevertheless wish to know what possible impact there would be on our economy, our national security and our constitution should we adopt the very real alternative of withdrawing altogether from Europe. That is what the Bill proposes.
It may be felt—indeed, it has been suggested already—that the committee referred to in the Bill might be rather antagonistic, with three from one side, three from another and the hope that it would come to a unanimous view. The Committee stage of the Bill may be an opportunity to present something rather more realistic and to make sure that we get it right.
The statements that are being made from the Government Benches in support of the euro are extremely misleading. For example, in a debate on agriculture the other day the Minister replying said that the agri-monetary compensation could be 50 per cent and that in another case it would be 29 per cent—with 71 per cent from us. She then concluded that, nevertheless, the agri-monetary compensation would amount to 85 per cent from us and 15 per cent from Europe. I tried various sources to get some lead on these figures but have been unable to do so. With the misleading information that is put around, I do wonder how any poor farmer should be required to cast his vote. He no doubt suspects, not unnaturally, that he will get nothing in any case and that the money will go to the French; and the French will have the benefit of keeping out his beef. But those are irrelevances to this Bill.
I want to ensure that we make decisions on Europe in the light of information. Do not let people go round kidding us, one day saying that we are lucky in the case of the farmers as 50 per cent of their compensation comes from Europe, and the next moment saying, "We are sorry. We were wrong about that. Only 15 per cent comes from Europe". It would also be nice if Ministers referring to farmers and their compensation would bring in the fact that we could have £166 million of agri-compensation without any matching grant being required. But that plus has not been mentioned. It is important that the committee set up under the Bill should inquire into such matters so that we can have presented to the House and to the public—the electorate in particular—what the consequences would be of a withdrawal from Europe.
In 1970, in the other place, I voted to join the Common Market, as it was then called. I relied on assurances then given that it would not lead us into a federal Europe, that it would not be any form of superstate, that we would not give up the setting of our own rates of taxation and that we would not have to accept other people's laws in preference to our own. Had an independent inquiry of the kind that is proposed in the Bill been launched at that time, it might have produced quite different projections. If the inquiry had then projected many of the features that

1841
are today exposed, some of us might have taken a different view on voting to join the common market, as it was then called.
My personal and no doubt ill-informed view is that the implications of withdrawal are somewhat frightening. Equally so—certainly no less so—are the implications of becoming part of a federal Europe, with its currency, its laws and with a whole mixture of universal taxation affecting us. Those are the threats which stand. The Bill is aimed at the consequences of withdrawal. We can then look at what the consequences would be compared with getting into Europe on a more central basis.
I want the consequences to be carefully examined. That is what the Bill is designed to do. I am sure my noble friend Lord Pearson would accept that improvements could be made to it in Committee. But to proceed, as eventually we must, to decide our fate in Europe without a preliminary impartial assessment of what is involved would be a highly irresponsible act. Whatever view we have about the decision we will have to take, let us not be in the position in the years ahead of having to say, "If only I had known". The Bill is designed to ensure that the facts can be known. I support it.
1.25 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, in the second half of the 20th century the concept of sovereignty needed more adjustment and amendment than at any other time in history. We are now in the next century—the next millennium—and Europe is more settled, more prosperous and more secure than at any other time in the past two centuries. We have to consider how we arrived at this state.
When there is reference to the global society—there has been much reference to it today—we have to acknowledge that institutions have grown up; for example, the great international companies. They have more influence and more political power than many states. The only way in which politicians—democratically elected politicians—can begin to control, modify or influence the great power of these capitalist institutions is by building themselves a very much larger edifice. We have to think of sovereignty by sphere. We needed a secure umbrella above us, so we had NATO and the Atlantic alliance. President Kennedy often referred to the two pillars of NATO. We should face the fact that the north American pillar has been there, but we have failed so far to build an effective European pillar. That is a bad thing for America, a bad thing for us, a bad thing for Europe, and a bad thing for the world.
We have needed an economic umbrella. We talk about a free trade area in Europe. That has been tried. What was EFTA but a hopeless attempt to have a free trade area? It was different. When people talk of leaving the European Community and perhaps having a free trade arrangement in Europe, they do not pay attention to what the other partners in Europe would think of that. It is obvious that they would not accept it. Therefore, if we left the European Community the
1842
only alternative—we have to consider alternatives—would be to try to become the 51st state of the United States of America.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, made a good deal of reference to the funds that have been available for the "yes" campaign. Has he considered the enormous power of the funds of Sir Conrad Black and Mr Murdoch in their control of much of the British media? The whole of the influence of their newspapers has been anti-European. Conrad Black has made no bones about it. He has extolled the virtues of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Although I do not think that he has suggested it for Canada, he has at least implied that Britain could become the 51st state.
Let us examine how we have arrived at this debate today. The mistakes of timing, and therefore of opportunity, made by the United Kingdom in relation to the development of the European Community have cost this country dearly. The presentation of what I regard as a ludicrous Bill at this time merely serves to remind us that the craven spirit that has cost the UK its position at the heart of Europe is still very much alive—and wrongly. The way to minimise our influence within Europe, and indeed in the world, which increasingly affects and determines our security, prosperity and the safe survival of future generations in this country, is to follow the spirit of Euroscepticism as exemplified, I am sorry to say, in the spirit of the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the Bill. He has always been quite open about his views and I respect them, as he will respect mine. We have had these exchanges before.
The common agricultural policy has been mentioned a great deal. It is very much in need of reform, as we on these Benches have always maintained. But why did we exclude ourselves from Europe when the common agricultural policy was being formed? It was a self-exclusion. We could have been there, yet we chose not to be. The policy was formulated and adopted, and part of its purpose, as mentioned by one speaker, was probably to prevent the movement of population from rural to urban areas. The threat certainly existed that France, Italy and other parts of Europe could have gone communist had it not been for the effect of the common agricultural policy. We chose not to be there.
Let us put the matter into perspective as it affects our country today. The recent survey by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research indicates that 143,000 agricultural jobs in the UK are attributable to exports to the European Union. It receives 64 per cent of the United Kingdom's food exports. For example, Spain imports more British food than does the United States of America. Many years before the BSE crisis, the United States banned British beef; and it still does so. One would have thought that there is so much advocacy, as it were, of our relationship with America that the Euro-sceptics should be concerned not so much about our being able to argue our position in Europe as about arguing our position with the United States, and Australia. Eighty-nine other countries in the world have banned British

1843
beef. We had no influence over them; but we have great influence over the countries within the common market.
Incidentally, the European Union has provided 70 per cent of the compensation costs of slaughtering older cattle to take that beef out of the food chain to help what was really a national problem for this country. It was not a European problem as such; it was a British problem. The compensation that had to be paid for the slaughter of those older beef cattle was an enormous sum—and the EU provided 70 per cent.
I have a total revulsion against the idea of returning to the age of total national economic independence. I remind the House of the period in the 1920s and 1930s when parts of the landscape of England and Wales resembled a dust bowl. As a student in my teens, I went to the Henry Ford agricultural institute in Essex. The story of the Henry Ford estate is interesting. Henry Ford, the great manufacturer, was passing through Essex on a train on his way to Harwich when he saw what reminded him of the Dust Bowl of the central United States. When he returned, he decided to buy an estate there. He later purchased an estate for which I am told he paid on average £18 an acre. He invested capital and eventually, because it was not possible to grow corn effectively on the estate, brought in smallholders from Worcestershire who transformed the situation with the help of the Henry Ford capital. It became an enormously successful co-operative business. The point I want to make is that in those days, when there was no protection for agriculture, much of Wales, England, Scotland and Ireland were effectively agricultural deserts, with the various environmental effects that stemmed from that.
To leave the European Union now would be a disaster for the rural areas of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. It would be equally disastrous for the industrial areas. Perhaps I may take my own country, Wales, as an example. I have the statistics for Wales, but the same must be true of much of the remainder of the United Kingdom. Thirty per cent of jobs in Wales are linked directly or indirectly with our 14 European partners. The South Bank University's European Institute estimated in its recent report, published only last month, that if the United Kingdom were to leave the European Union, 155,246 jobs would face the axe in Wales out of a total of 3 million for the United Kingdom as a whole. The estimates are based on each parliamentary constituency affected. The figures indicate that industrial areas, as well as rural areas, would be greatly affected.
I have visited the Republic of Ireland several times over the past year or two and have been amazed at the transformation in the Irish economy. It has benefited enormously in the same way as other depressed areas in the European Union have been greatly improved by wealthier countries, particularly Germany and this country. We have been subsidising developments in the poorer parts of Europe.
1844
I have been tremendously impressed by the amount of inward investment coming to Ireland, not from within Europe but from outside. It is the European Community that has brought the Irish Republic to the state where it has become an attractive proposition. It is interesting to talk to some of those who have moved to the Irish Republic from the United States, the Far East and so on, and find out their reasoning for going to the Republic; namely, that Ireland is an English-speaking country. Let us not forget that one of the great benefits for our country within Europe is that the English language is the commercial language of Europe. A form of English is becoming the commercial global language. That is an enormous help. Those from the United States and the Far East who want to settle in Europe or have their headquarters there are very attracted by the Republic of Ireland as an alternative to the UK. It has become an even more attractive alternative to them because the Republic of Ireland is within the euro and we are outside it. In the next two or three years we may see an acceleration of inward investment from outside the European Union. Companies which want to operate within the EU have their headquarters in the Republic of Ireland.
Whatever our problems with the EU—there is scope for reforming it—this country in particular has a great gift for organising government and democracy, and it has a good deal to contribute. We should not think simply of what we can get out of Europe—we have already had a great deal out of it—but what we can give to it. We have the opportunity to provide leadership in Europe. It is no use thinking that we shall lead Europe; we must co-operate with others in doing this. We could have a much more positive policy towards the European Union. That is why the younger generation needs the leadership that has been so lacking in the present Government as well as their predecessors.
1.41 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Pearson for introducing this Bill today. From the outset, I feel strongly that the general public should be made aware of the implications if this country withdrew from the European Union and did not accept the euro. Likewise, the people of this country should be made aware of the serious consequences which would result from remaining within the European Union. The public have not been informed about the steps that the Government are taking, and that is unacceptable. Surely it is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that everyone is given the opportunity to be reliably informed about the implications if we were to withdraw from the EU. The proposed committee of inquiry would achieve those aims and if it was not established the Government's policy of open government should be critically examined.
Generally speaking, it can be argued that the EU is not a democratic union as enormous power is concentrated in three unelected bureaucracies: the European Commission, the Court of Justice and now

1845
the Central European Bank. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the European Parliament has little power to bring these bureaucracies to account due to the statutes on which they were founded, even though there has been fraud amounting to some £6 billion. This begs the question: does the UK really wish to continue to be involved in such an inefficient and fraudulent organisation? We should examine the option of withdrawal from the European Union. If we did not join EMU and abolish the pound we would be able to run our own affairs and would no longer be dictated to by Brussels.
Some of your Lordships today have focused on the fact that the introduction of the euro would not be harmful to the UK and that we would be better off if we were part of the single currency. I do not agree with this. I believe that it would lead to dire consequences for our constitution, national security and the economy. There is little doubt that if we were to join the single currency our economy and our country would suffer as we would lose our sovereignty, flexibility and ability to be able to make our own decisions and impose our own regulations on our economy. The implications of not joining the EMU would probably be our withdrawal from the European Union, thereby retaining our own independence.
It is a frightening thought to reflect that the Government seem intent on the destruction of our constitution, which has provided some 600 years of well-being for our nation. All these matters are of grave concern and do not bode well for the UK. I ask noble Lords not to be under any misapprehension that monetary union establishes political integration and that the creation of a common currency is a means to a political end. This political agenda is openly agreed and admitted by Ministers in Europe and by the President of the ECB. We would cede control over interest rates and the economy to institutions which are not transparent and over which we would have little influence. Too much has been ceded to Brussels. With the loss of our currency, our economy and freedom of action would be deeply compromised. Such a transfer would be permanent and irrevocable.
To join the single currency would involve a common EU tax policy. It would prejudice our competitive position and impinge on our sovereignty. If we join the euro and abolish the pound we shall lose our sovereignty and be powerless to stand up to Brussels. No longer will our own legal and parliamentary systems be in place to protect our freedom. It would be harmful and not in the best interests of the British people and the economy to join such a single currency. The ECB will set the interest rates for all countries in the EU and will bring about tax harmonisation, almost certainly at higher rates than exist in the UK today. Currently, we have the lowest income tax and corporation tax and no VAT is paid on food, children's clothing, newspapers, books, travel and new houses.
The United Kingdom should remain outside the single currency. After all, we are a global trader and have the fourth largest economy in the world after the US, Japan and Germany. We retain a seat on the UN
1846
Security Council; we are head of the Commonwealth; and our language is spoken by 1 billion people. We are a member of the Group of Seven industrial nations, the IMF and the World Bank. Britain's trade with the non-EU world is the highest of any EU country as a percentage of total trade; and our trade in goods with the other 14 European countries accounts for only about 9 per cent of GDP, not the 60 per cent of exports as reported by the Government. To join the euro would harm our world trade and affect our economy.
The matters related to the European security and defence initiative should really be part of a separate debate, but from my knowledge of the present state of ESDI I am not supportive of it, for the following reasons. The creation of a European army goes some way towards the creation of a European superstate to rival America. Rivalry between the USA and Europe should be avoided at all costs as it would only play into the hands of the Russians. The EU cannot be separated from the US for many years to come because a European army would not have the necessary capability to deploy operationally on its own. The US is the only country in possession of the required assets, logistical support, strategic lift and intelligence to deploy a force rapidly and sustain it. The US Deputy Secretary of State, Mr Strobe Talbott, has said that the US Government would not want to see a European army, first within NATO, then growing out of it and finally growing away from it, which in any event would lead to duplication of effort.
Any real threat from Russia to the west in the future would require a genuine response from NATO and not from an inexperienced European army within a weak and complex Europe. I remind your Lordships that Russia has increased her defence expenditure and still retains over 20,000 nuclear weapons. Soon there will be a new president who is likely to be a strong leader and nationalist with a dangerous background. There will be no counterweight to Russia in Europe without a continued American security presence in NATO. A proper and well trained European army will require substantially increased budgets in percentages of GNP.
On examination it appears highly unlikely that any European country will increase its defence spending because of the acute restraining effects of EMU. That is another good reason why this country should not be drawn into EMU. Since the St Malo announcement in December of last year I believe that no European Union country has yet increased its defence budget.
One can be forgiven for thinking that ESDI is only rhetoric. ESDI can lead only to more over-commitment for our Armed Forces, which in turn will result in further overstretch. Furthermore, political pressures may develop to ensure that Britain, as a strong member of ESDI, should always take part in any European operation. Even worse, political and diplomatic pressures could be exercised to prevent us from taking part in our own national operations, such as the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Iraq and the Gulf. I see the ESDI as a dangerous road to be avoided.

1847
I have tried to make it as clear as possible to your Lordships that the loss of sovereignty and the grave threats to our economy are not in the interests of our country. The European single currency is designed to bring about political as well as economic union in Europe. Abolishing the pound and taking up the euro would mean that interest rates, exchange rates and ultimately tax rates would be set by institutions that are not accountable to the British public. Britain's growth depends on her ability to set economic policy according to her needs and that economic and monetary union would jeopardise both Britain's democracy and her prosperity.
Some of the implications of withdrawing from the EU are that we should retain our sovereignty and strengthen the constitution. We would not become a federated state of Europe, but would remain in a European free trade area retaining the pound. The nation would avoid tax harmonisation and higher taxes and the economy would prosper. It seems to me that many people wish to leave the European Union while even more are against the EMU and the abolition of the pound. I believe that it is the duty of the Government to establish this committee of inquiry in accordance with their policy of open government to ensure that the general public are aware of the true facts about the European Union.
1.51 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, on only one thing: that there should be a wider debate on the European Union, our future within it and the alternatives that he discussed. However, I disagree that such a debate should be undertaken on the premises of this Motion. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has done the House and the nation a disservice, bearing in mind that his idiotic and mischievous proposal might be taken seriously by some people here and overseas as an indication of the possible course of events if we were ever unlucky enough to see the Conservatives back in power—greatly reinforced, as they would be, by the Europhobes whom they are now adopting in the constituencies that they think they are able to win.
There would be disastrous consequences for Britain if outsiders even think that we are contemplating walking the plank into the Atlantic, or if we show that we are looking for excuses to justify turning our back on the great ideal of European unity. There would be catastrophic implications not only from withdrawal from the European Union but also if the noble Lord's Bill got onto the statute book, and I suspect that the noble Lord knows that perfectly well in one part of his mind. However, another part of the noble Lord behaves like a member of some bizarre religious sect, contradicting things that are obvious to all normal people.
I want to concentrate on some aspects of cooperating with Europe that are not even mentioned in the Bill, perhaps because the noble Lord did not think that they were sufficiently important. I refer, first, to
1848
the European Court of Justice. It has been mentioned briefly and was described by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, as one of the pieces of bureaucracy which he wants to get rid of but which ensures that Community law is applied uniformly throughout the whole area of the EU. I draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have been dealing with a steadily increasing volume of cases; and that is bound to have accelerated since the third stage of monetary union and the Treaty of Amsterdam which came into force in 1999. In 1998 485 cases were commenced before the Court of Justice and 238 before the Court of First Instance. They disposed of 768 cases in that year. Among the matters expected to give rise to an even larger volume of cases in the future are Title IV of the treaty which deals with visas, asylum, immigration and other policies relating to the free movement of persons, and Title VI dealing with police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. I shall say a word about each of those later. But meanwhile I draw your Lordships' attention to a few important cases which have been decided by the Court in the area of gender discrimination.
In the case of Dr Pamela Enderby, the question was whether speech therapists, who are almost entirely female, should be paid less than pharmacists, who are almost predominantly male, assuming that the two jobs were of equal value, and despite the fact that the pay scales for the two professions were arrived at by separate collective bargaining processes in which there was no element of discrimination. The Court ruled that in the circumstances described it was for the employer to show that the difference was based on objectively justified factors, unrelated to any discrimination on the ground of sex.
In the Coloroll Pensions case, the employees of the firm had pension rights that were gender specific, providing for pensions to be paid at the normal retirement ages of 60 for women and 65 for men, and other rights such as the payment of a lump sum in lieu of pension, and additional benefits in return for voluntary contributions which were again gender specific. The company went into receivership and the trustees were not sure whether the rules for the disposal of the pension fund's assets were compatible with the "equal pay for equal work" provisions of the treaty. The European Court found that the trustees were bound to use all means available to them under domestic law to eliminate discrimination, if necessary reducing the advantages which the favoured employees would otherwise have enjoyed.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and his Europhobe allies, believe in equal pay for equal work, and in equal treatment of men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training, promotion and working conditions. If we were able to withdraw from the treaties, that would mean also renouncing the jurisdiction of the Court and, in order to maintain these principles, we would have to enact domestic legislation bringing the relevant provisions of the treaty and the Council directives back into force in our domestic law. But Parliament would always have the right to amend any

1849
Bills for that purpose and discrepancies on gender equality at work between our law and that of Europe would be bound to develop. But even if by some miracle, Parliament decided to enact those provisions without amendment, we could not guarantee that our courts would always rule in exactly the same sense as the European Court and there would be a gradual divergence of case law between this country and Europe which would be harmful to our interests. I have used gender equality as an example, but the same reasoning applies to every other area of European legislation.
A few weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, initiated a debate on employment in which he said that under this Government women's issues had been given greater priority, and he pointed to the implementation of EU directives on part-time workers, fixed term contracts and parental leave, all of which had been important in improving the quality of women's employment. These directives had been agreed in Brussels over the past three or four years at the instigation of the trade unions, and, after the debate, the noble Lord was good enough to send me a copy of the TUC's annual report detailing the impressive work that it is doing under the social chapter of the Maastricht Treaty. Does the noble Lord want to throw all that away?
One of the many useful advances made for working people was the Working Time Directive which deals with maximum hours worked in a day or a week. The Europhobes who are so fond of telling us how iniquitous it is that we should be "ruled by the bureaucrats in Brussels" (as they put it) may be glad to get back to the good old days when employers had the power to compel workers to slave away for 80 or 90 hours a week. Alternatively, they may say that they do like workers to have one rest day in a week, a break in any day's work longer than six hours, four weeks' holiday and so on, but in the future we in Britain must have the right to be different in these matters from everybody else in Europe.
When notice is given to the rest of the world that this is a popular viewpoint here, investors who are in it for the long term will look for somewhere else to spend their money and to create new jobs. In the avalanche of redundancies that would follow, it might be some small consolation that employers are under a duty to consult trade unions about large-scale redundancies under another ruling of the ECJ.
The noble Lord apparently does not think that we need to bother about implications for co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs, dealt with in the Maastricht Treaty. Let me mention three areas in which I say that more co-operation is needed. They are asylum, drug trafficking and organised crime. On asylum, we need common policies so that refugees do not flock to countries where they believe they may receive preferential treatment. When people come to Europe partly for economic and partly for political reasons, Europe must deal with the problem collectively rather than individually. Clearly, the present movements of the Roma from Romania are of
1850
that nature. The Roma leave their country because of their desperate poverty, as well as discrimination and ill-treatment.
Romania is of course a candidate for entry to the EU in the second round of enlargement and as such it has to put its house in order by conforming to the Copenhagen European Council criteria, which include respect for and protection of minorities. Thus, the EU has some leverage over Romania. Although the Commission had already concluded in November 1998 that it had met the criteria, it would still be open to the Commission or the Parliament to conduct a more comprehensive inquiry into the treatment of the Roma. Perhaps it could look at ways of assisting the Roma community to improve its economic status at home so as to diminish the incentive to look for betterment abroad. If Britain were no longer a member state, we would have no say in any of those matters.
On organised crime and drug trafficking, cooperation is essential because the criminal networks are international. Europol, the European Police Office based in the Hague, is developing a system for information to be collected, analysed and exchanged at European level. The European Drugs Unit, which is already operational, facilitates exchange of information between two or more member states on drug trafficking, crimes linked to clandestine immigration networks and trafficking in human beings. Were all those matters so unimportant that the implications for them of withdrawal could be ignored?
As the former Prime Minister, John Major, put it on 24th April 1996:
"The idea that if we were outside the EU we could somehow become a trading haven on the edge of Europe with all the benefits of that vital market of 370 million—while others fix the rules without any regard at all to our national self interest—is cloud cuckoo land".
I do not blame John Major for retiring. The right honourable gentleman must be downhearted, as he comes to the end of his distinguished political career, to see the Conservative Party being taken over by the aliens of cloud-cuckoo land. As in the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", the humans among the Tories are gradually being weeded out and replaced by creatures who look perfectly normal, but are actually engaged in a plan to detach all the rest of us from reality. They must be stopped, and the sane world outside must know that their antics on a Friday in the House of Lords are not going to make an iota of difference to the UK's full and enthusiastic co-operation with the developing European project.
2.2 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Pearson for introducing this Bill. After all, it will give us a few facts about the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, chastised it as idiotic and mischievous. His view seems to be, "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up". That is the idiotic view. Whatever view we may take of Britain's relationship with the European Union, at least my noble friend's Bill has given us the opportunity—otherwise denied to

1851
us because there is to be no debate on the current IGC—to discuss the matter. The Bill will require the Government to give some factual answers to the points raised today and go a little beyond the empty rhetoric, which we always hear, that Britain's destiny lies in Europe. From the study that is proposed in the Bill, the Government may have second thoughts about where Britain's interests really lie.
The world has moved on since we voted in 1975 to stay in the Common Market. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that in 1975 we voted for what he called "Europe". We did not vote for Europe; we voted to stay in the Common Market. We did not vote for the EEC, we did not vote for the EC, we did not even vote for the European Union; we voted for the Common Market. We did not vote for a common fisheries policy; we did not vote for a common security and defence policy; we did not vote to criminalise our trade as though things were sold in pounds rather than in kilos; and we certainly did not vote for qualified majority voting or the European Court of Justice.
Lord McNally: My Lords, would the noble Lord concede that in 1975 we voted to join an organisation whose first clause and objective was the ever-closer union of the European people? Why the Europhobes continue to claim that they were fooled in 1975 I fail to understand. What we were voting for was clear and the British people, by two to one, overwhelmingly voted, "Yes, please".
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, we can have different views on what they voted for. The question was whether we wanted to stay in the Common Market. However, let me move on. The Common Market is dead and buried. We are now in a rigid customs union called "the single market". We are facing strong pressure to abandon the pound and hand over control of our economic destiny to an unelected, supra-national organisation whose remit specifically excludes it from considering British interests.
From EMU inevitably flows political union and it is only in this country that the political flat-earthers have tried to deny that the sun rises in the east. Again, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke of weasel words. I believe that we can debate the issue for as long as we like, but I have never heard anyone in favour of EMU either on these Benches, the Benches opposite or on the Liberal Democrat Benches make the inevitable corollary by saying, "Yes, I am in favour of EMU, but it means political union". If they would at least swallow that, we could really get into a proper debate.
I was pleased that the noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Monson, spotted Mr Solbes at it yesterday when he stated in the Daily Telegraph:
"In the longer term, it is not possible to be in the Union and outside EMU".
Do we accept that view or not? He is a commissioner, so he must know what he is talking about. Therefore, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that it does not make much sense to continue to have a semidetached attitude to the European Union. She said
1852
that we should be pooling sovereignty and went on, perhaps inadvertently, to say that we would be sacrificing sovereignty and handing it over. I do not think that you can pool sovereignty. You can hand it over—you can sacrifice it—but I do not believe you can pool it.
It seems that if we vote for economic and monetary union, we shall be on an irreversible track towards political union. It is a track down which this Government seem to want to lead us, but they cannot quite do it because at the moment the voters will not have it. Therefore, I believe that we should be grateful not only to Commissioner Solbes but to my noble friend Lord Pearson for making the point so clearly that EMU means that, absolutely inevitably, political union will come in its train.
Therefore, I believe that if we are likely to be kicked out of the Union because our voters will not swallow economic and monetary union, surely it is at least sensible to look at the alternatives that may be available to us. That is all we are doing. The alternatives are what someone—I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Moran, when he was in the Foreign Office—called "plan B". We are simply considering what plan B might be. When we do so, we may surprise ourselves because there is very little evidence to support the view that there is no alternative to EU membership.
In fact, I believe that Britain's interests are badly served by our membership of the European Union. Outside the euro, as we are now, we have a dynamic economy. I believe that everyone agrees with that. As my noble friend Lord Vivian said, we are now the fourth largest economy in the world, thanks largely, I believe, to the weakness of the euro. We are ranked eighth in the world in terms of global competitiveness. We are ranked eighth out of 59 nations by the World Economic Forum in terms of future economic growth. The closest EU economy is Denmark, which ranks 27th.
We are by far the preferred target for inward investment in the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, says that inward investment to Ireland is increasing. That is a very good thing. If that increase were due to Ireland's membership of the European Union and EMU, it would be marvellous. We are outside EMU, and our investment amounts to more than half the total inward investment into the European Union. We should therefore ask ourselves why we are receiving this massive, lion's share in inward investment into the European Union. Is it because we are like the other economies? Or is it because we are different? It must be because we are different. If we were like them, we would not get the lion's share; it would be spread out around the other economies. However, it is not; it is coming to us. I believe that that is because we are outside the economic and monetary union. At present, we are not going to join the single currency and we have a very different economy. We have lower taxes, lower wage costs, more flexibility and we are—at least for the moment, but I do not know for how long—less tightly regulated.

1853
The unpalatable fact for the sack cloth and ashes brigade is that we are attracting this inward investment in spite of the fact that we are not in the euro, in spite of the fact that 70 per cent of the people of this country have already shown that they do not want the euro, and in spite of the fact that the head of the ECB has made it clear that the prospect of Britain joining the euro, even in the medium term, is about as likely as England winning a cricket match.
So much for inward investment. However, the story of our foreign direct investment is even more remarkable. As foreign investors, world-wide we are second only to the United States. We now generate more income from our foreign direct investment than we do from all our visible and invisible exports put together. Thirty-four per cent of our foreign direct investment is in the United States; 30 per cent is in the Commonwealth; and only 18 per cent in Europe.
Therefore, when it is clear that Britain is a major global trading investment nation, why do we believe that it is so important to converge at any cost with the outdated and failing continental model? The EU share of world trade has fallen 15 per cent over the past 10 years, the euro is falling, and job creation is falling. The only things in Euroland which are going up at the moment are taxes, unemployment and regulation. What magic is there in being at the heart of this suboptimal performer, particularly when, as my noble friend Lord Pearson said, only 10 per cent of our gross domestic product is involved in export to Europe?
If the best comes to the best and we find it impossible to remain in the European Union for whatever reason, there will be very serious consequences, as has been pointed out. I can tell my noble friend Lord Pearson that we have some hard decisions to make. For example, we would have to decide our spending priorities for the £11 billion which we pay into the European budget. We would have to make serious decisions about the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy and how to spend the money that we would otherwise be giving to Europe. We shall be forced to consider how to shape our own farming, our own fisheries and our own environment. And, of course, we would have to endure the almost unbearable burden of controlling our own affairs without the benefit of those helpful directives from Brussels.
Who knows? With the information that the Bill would require the Government to gather, they may no longer consider that Britain's interests and destiny lie in Europe. There is a respectable precedent for that. After all, Mr Blair himself campaigned on a "Get out of Europe" ticket in 1983. He has changed his mind. John Maynard Keynes once said, when criticised for changing his mind, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?" Perhaps it is time for the Government to consider his words.
2.14 p.m.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and perhaps help him a little in understanding some of the business views that he so graphically misrepresented.
1854
I am deeply concerned about the effect the Bill might have on business and the business community. The risks for business of withdrawal are very significant. Even the risks of a threat of withdrawal are very significant. For the past 30 years I have spent the best part of my career dealing with investment, both inward and outward, in many countries. There has been a trend that some people have described of late as "globalisation". That has been going on for some time. The result is that we see some very large corporate entities around the world, hugely powerful machines, and they will get bigger; they will not get smaller. We need large entities to control them. It is encouraging that at this stage in the development of society there is a general acceptance that it is business that creates the wealth and government that create the environment in which that wealth can be created.
I should like to begin by dealing with what I regard as the teenage love affair with NAFTA. There is a suggestion that membership of NAFTA is a viable alternative. First, those who are wedded to keeping the pound at all costs, whatever it may do to us, need to understand that NAFTA is essentially a single currency market. One will not be successful in a single currency market from the outside unless one joins that currency.
More than that, I should like to quote what Mr Workman of the United States Chamber of Commerce says:
"If the UK pulled out of the EU, a lot of US investors would say, 'Have you been smoking funny tobacco? Why do you want to do that?' US investment in the UK would become less attractive because companies would not have preferential access to the European market. The UK would go from being a first tier player in capital markets to being a second tier player".
It is not just US business that is concerned. We should listen hard to those businessmen who are out in the market-place every day fighting to develop their businesses. One of the more successful in Britain is Sir Clive Thompson, president of the CBI, who says:
"The European Union represents the world's largest consumer market. For any business looking to grow and expand in Europe it is essential that Britain remains a key player within the EU. In short, Britain should take a leading role in helping shape the way in which the European market develops".
I said that I wanted to concentrate on business and on the benefits of EU membership. I want to deal with businesses large and small. I also want to comment on telecoms and the development of e-commerce, web-based businesses and how I see them as important as well.
Whether we like it or not—and we can argue about the statistics—the European Union in business terms is our major trading partner. More important, it provides the largest access to the largest consumer market in the world, a market of over 370 million people. I stress that it is the aspect of a single market, not a free trade area, that is important, a single market operating within a set of rules.
It is true that foreign investment is responsible for over a million jobs. I do not think that anybody disputes that figure. We can argue about all sorts of other jobs, but certainly over a million jobs in the UK

1855
are dependent on foreign investment. The UK has been remarkably successful in attracting it. I have worked in that field for many years. One of the key marketing planks in attracting foreign investment into this country is access to the single European market. This country is seen to have the attractions of the English language and of what is often called the Anglo-Saxon model. But it is access to the single European market that is important.
It is worth listening to the chairman of the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (UK). He said:
"Britain will be attractive to foreign investors for the foreseeable future because it is seen as a 'pre-in' country of the single currency, with a commitment to entry in principle".
I know that the issue of European monetary union raises the temperature and blood pressure of many people. But from a business perspective it is a critical factor in attracting investment into the UK.
Investment continues to be high, but I remind noble Lords that decisions about investment today were probably made two to three years ago. That is the time scale with which one deals when looking at inward foreign investment.
I underline also what my noble friend Lord Hooson said; namely, that the competitive nature of that market-place is changing. Whereas in the past Britain was able to promote itself as a home for foreign investment, as a key gateway to the European Union, the Irish Republic now promotes itself very actively as the only English-speaking territory of the Eurozone.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord emphasise the importance which he attaches to the English language itself?
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I am happy to do that. The English language is a critical part of that mix, but it is only one part.
Membership has also led to the scrapping of certain bureaucracies. I know that it is popular to point to Brussels and the excess of forms. But it is certainly clear that the Customs Union has resulted in major savings, probably in the order of £135 million to £140 million.
In summing up the attitude of big business towards the European Union I refer to two opinions from very different businessmen. Niall Fitzgerald, the chairman of Unilever, describes ruling out the single currency as not being in Britain's interest. He said:
"To do so would be to jeopardise the strength of British companies".
But more important, one of Britain's great entrepreneurs, James Dyson, said:
"In an increasingly global marketplace it is vital that the UK remains at the heart of Europe. To distance ourselves from the worlds largest consumer market would be folly".
Those opinions of leading businessmen demonstrate that rather than withdraw or have the notion of withdrawal, we should be increasingly at the heart of Europe and at the heart of events.
1856
I turn now to small and medium-sized enterprises. According to figures from the Treasury, some 30 to 40 per cent of all small and medium-sized enterprises in this country do business within the European Union. Some 750,000 entities are involved with trade. We already export more than £3 billion to those first five new applicants which have been talked about.
I can do no better than return to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, about the wing mirrors of Europe and refer him to the view of a manufacturer of wing mirrors, Chris Haley, the managing director of Car Consumables Limited. He said:
"Out of the EU it would be much harder for Britain's small exporters like ourselves to get export business in Europe. British jobs need EU membership more than ever before".
A further factor in this is the development of electronic commerce and e-business, or the web as it is commonly known. In effect, it removes distance as a factor in business. Why has the web and e-commerce taken off so quickly in the United States? Apart from the take-up of access, you also have a single market with a single currency within which the delivery of items ordered and sold can take place. Withdrawal from the EU would be detrimental to the growth of e-commerce because e-commerce, like mail order, is hampered by the customs barriers which the single market helps to overcome. That is why it has been so successful in the United States and why, if we were to withdraw, it would be an impediment to us.
Currency fluctuations will remain as much a barrier to trade over the Internet as to most other forms of trade. The single currency and e-commerce are in fact two forces pushing in the same direction. A survey by Andersen Consulting in June 1999 found that 63 per cent of European firms agreed that the euro stimulated e-currency. Only 18 per cent disagreed. The same survey found that 49 per cent of US firms agreed.
I turn to the means by which e-commerce is developed—the telecommunications industry. Membership of the EU and the single market has enhanced that growth. It has directly benefited British consumers. To leave Europe would be throwing that away. It means that British firms now have access to telecommunications markets throughout the EU. The opening up of those markets to non-national operators has produced competition. It has increased and prices have been driven down, to the benefit of the consumer. Competition in the liberalised EU market has led in some places to approximately 50 per cent cheaper call prices. For example, a three-minute call to Italy today costs 91p. Ten years ago it cost £1.86. Had Britain been outside the European Union—I return to the issue of British business investing overseas—it is highly unlikely that Vodafone would have been able to take over Mannesman. Again, a major British company built its way across Europe by using the European Union.
In conclusion, the business lobby—for which I do not claim to speak but of which I am part—is appalled at the prospect of the Bill. Even talk of withdrawal damages its prospects.
2.27 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for bringing forward the Bill. It has enabled us to have quite a good debate. In his defence of why we should grow closer to Europe, the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, quoted Mr Dyson, who I believe makes vacuum cleaners. Did I not read somewhere that he was relocating his production from Malmesbury to elsewhere outside the European Union? If I am right, the gentleman should put his money where his mouth is, not elsewhere.
I turn to the question of whether the British people have given their consent for going into the European Union and an integrated European state. The British people were never asked whether or not they wanted to go in. They were consulted only in 1975—and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, knows this well—as to whether we should remain in a common market. It is no use him saying that the British people were not misled, because Mr Heath in his 1971 White Paper said quite clearly that there was no question of the loss of essential British sovereignty. The British people were misled at that time. They have not been asked since whether they want further integration.
Indeed, the Liberal Democrats, who have been so vociferous today and who claim to be such democrats, failed to support some of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, when we demanded a referendum and put down a Motion for a referendum in this House before we agreed to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. They voted against such consultation when we wanted it. They are trying today to pour scorn on the idea that we should discuss the pros and cons of our membership of the European Union. Let us get that straight.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, recall the 1983 general election when, for a change, quite rightly, there was a difference between the manifestos of the three political parties. The Labour Party fought a general election specifically on withdrawal and had the biggest rejection in the whole of its history. Does not the noble Lord think that that was the British people being consulted?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord has his history wrong. The reason that the Labour Party lost that election had little to do with the common market. It concerned defence and what was happening in the Labour Party at that time. I was probably closer to the ground then than the noble Lord. Mr Kinnock believed that this issue was losing him the general election. He therefore changed the Labour Party's mind in 1985 but nevertheless went down to a big defeat in 1987 and, indeed, again in 1992. We only won the election in 1997 because the Tories lost it. One of the reasons they lost it was because they entered the disastrous ERM which everyone knows cost millions of jobs and thousands of businesses. That is the history. I know my history well.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in praising the work of the European Union—every bit of which could have been done through Acts of Parliament in this
1858
Parliament—mentioned the consultative process in Europe. What consultation was there with the Rover workers or the British Government before Rover was closed down by BMW? So much for the consultative process which is supposed to be so good for us.
It is difficult to know why anybody would want to oppose the Bill. It is about time we had a proper assessment of what is happening and of whether we derive any benefits from being a member of this organisation. We are often insulted by Ministers, when we dare to ask questions about the benefits or disbenefits. I have asked questions. I have asked the Government to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of our membership. The answer comes back, "The benefits are self-evident". Perhaps I may say to the Government that the benefits are not self-evident to me nor to the people in this country, particularly farmers and fishermen. So, it is no good giving that sort of answer.
I would have thought that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would be pleased to support the Bill. He has demanded a full-ranging debate on Europe. This is one of the opportunities for such a debate. I hope, therefore, that when my noble friend replies, she will be able to say that she welcomes the Bill and will ensure that it has a good and fast passage through this House and another place so that we can get down to the business in hand before, if possible, the IGC at the end of this year.
People like me have always opposed our entry into the common market because we knew the implications. However, those who are sceptical about the whole business are slandered and labelled with all kinds of names. We are extremists or we are on the extreme Right wing. This morning, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, threw out another insult. We are aliens. However, as far as I am concerned, I have always been against it.
In the 1970s I was accused of being a Left-wing extremist because I was opposed to going in. However, I now find that I am labelled as a Right-wing extremist because I want to come out. All that I have done is to stand exactly where I always have, but the argument has, of course, moved on. However, I am still convinced that it would be in our interest to withdraw from the European Union, and to do so as soon as possible.
But I am a reasonable man. I like argument. Noble Lords will be aware that I will engage in argument on as many occasions as I feel able, bearing in mind that these days I am so often not in favour of government policy. Nevertheless, I am prepared to see this argument pursued in all areas of government policy, but in a way in which rancour is eliminated. That is why I believe that we should agree to this Bill.
We shall need to discuss a wide range of issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, mentioned, we need to talk about the damage that has been done to our farming and fishing industries and to discuss how we can put right that damage for the future. There are far better ways of dealing with the farming industry than through the common

1859
agricultural policy. Indeed, both the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy have been disastrous for this country. Why on earth we should want to have any more common policies, I simply do not know.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. How does he reconcile his view with that of the president of the National Farmers Union, who said recently that membership of the EU is vital to the interests of British farmers?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the National Farmers Union is traditionally wrong about everything. It was wrong when it promised the farmers of this country a good and continuing high standard of living. A great many of those farmers—in particular those who have now been forced out of farming—know how wrong the NFU was then. It is likely to be wrong now as well. I shall not go into detail on that argument because I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about farming. However, I probably know as much about the subject as does the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
Many other matters need to be discussed. We need to discuss the effects on manufacturing industry. Since we entered the common market, our manufacturing industry, which was supposed to have benefited from our membership, has declined by 33 per cent. After Rover, it will decline even further. We must examine the effects of membership on manufacturing industry.
We also need to consider the regulatory problems that both big and small businesses have to bear as a result of regulations issued by the EU. Higher food prices would greatly help wages and business if we were not paying £1,000 more per family for our food than we need be.
We want to know, and we ought to know, whether we are getting good value for the £9.5 billion which the taxpayers of this country pay every year. Or would that money be better spent helping farming and fishing, rather than going into the European Union coffers to be laundered by the corrupt European institutions?
The committee of inquiry would also need to consider the constitutional aspects of our continued integration with Europe; for example, the reduced status of Parliament and the Union's power of decision over a wide-ranging and increasing number of issues. What is the destination for our Parliament, which has been around for almost 1,000 years? We need to consider how the law has changed and is continuing to be changed, and how the increasingly intrusive European police force will operate in the future. Those are all issues which the committee of inquiry will need to consider.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, we ought to consider our foreign policy. It is an important part of our institutions. If it were outside the EU, would it regain its dynamic influence in the world, unfettered by the shifting sands of continental interests? Will our
1860
Armed Forces be increasingly hampered and weakened within a European defence policy and defence force or could they develop properly outside that to defend Britain and play a proper and independent role in the world?
We need to consider the effect on political parties. They are being neutralised in their effect and in their self-government. The involvement of ordinary electors in the governance of their country is involved. We should perhaps consider within the committee of inquiry whether, as a result of our membership of the EU, people are being alienated from politics and its institutions which have been built up over a long period of time.
I believe this Bill would be a useful Bill. It would give us an opportunity really to inquire into our membership of the EU: whether it is good for us; whether it is bad for us; and whether it would be in our interests to withdraw. People should have confidence in this country. Remember, we are the fourth largest economy in the world. It is not necessary for us to become the 51st state of America, or any other country for that matter. We are just as capable as Taiwan or Japan of standing on our own two feet, making our own way in the world and making our influence felt in the world, as we have done for the past 500 years.
2.43 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I should like to concentrate on a number of points which may seem almost self-evident, but which may be overlooked or obscured in the exchanges between Europhiles and Europhobes—I do not use the word "Euro-sceptic", which is a rather dishonest word.
First, the European Community—now the European Union—is one of the longer lasting as well as one of the most important associations of sovereign states this century. It is 43 years since the original agreement was incorporated in the Treaty of Rome, and United Kingdom membership, since the British people voted in the referendum to participate, is also long-standing. There are no children in our schools and virtually no students in our universities who have known a time when the UK was not a member of the European Union. With NATO, the Commonwealth and our friendly relations with the United States, it is the principal bulwark of our economic policy and of our role in the world. It would, indeed, be a serious matter to seek to overturn the will of the British people clearly expressed in the referendum on membership. For myself, I find it rather insulting to the British people to claim that they did not know what they were voting for.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord really cannot be allowed to get away with that one. I quoted the letter that the Prime Minister of the time sent to every household in the land. It was absolutely clear to everyone that we were voting to stay in a common market and we were not voting in 1975 for what we now see in front of us.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I do not agree at all with what the noble Lord has said. I think

1861
that the British public knew quite clearly what they were doing. We were voting that the British Government should sign the Treaty of Rome. The Treaty of Rome was quite explicit and I think that this piece of rewriting of history is not satisfactory.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the facts are that we were voting to stay in the Common Market; we had already signed the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, that is true and the Treaty of Rome was quite clear about where the European Economic Community was headed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord denies the fact that the British people were asked to go into a common market; that was all they were asked. I was very much concerned with that referendum; I took part in the referendum; and, indeed, know exactly what was said in the referendum; namely, that we were joining a common market, no more and no less. It was denied that we were going into an integrated European system.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, once again, I disagree. I have been interrupted but I repeat my point that I think that the British public knew quite clearly what they were doing on that occasion.
Secondly, we can assess how well we have done in this community of sovereign nations on the two principal counts: first of all, peace and the support for the democratic values in which we believe on our continent; and, secondly, prosperity and the growth and better distribution of wealth among our people and the improvement in consumer choice. I believe that it would be a great mistake to underrate the value of the continued peace, stability and democratic way of life that has prevailed in western Europe since the founding of the European Community. Outside the Community's frontiers we have seen violent conflict in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya, but within the EU such conflict has been made unthinkable by the close working together of its members over long years.
The existence of the European Union and its attractiveness to the people of central and eastern Europe was one of the most important reasons for the ending of Soviet control over those countries and the establishment of freedom and democratic regimes there. The first choice of the 108 million people in the countries of central and eastern Europe was to apply for membership of the EU. That is known as a vote of confidence which will be implemented soon by the enlargement of the European Union to include those countries, thus extending the assurance of a peaceful and stable Continent, which is clearly in the United Kingdom's interest.
The prosperity of its members is also a principal objective of the Union. Decades of economic growth have seen a surge in the wealth of the member states and in the buying power of their citizens. You do not need to be an economist to see that; a brief visit to our neighbouring countries in western Europe will demonstrate the high standards of living and the
1862
quality of life, including the substantial investment that those countries have made in health, education, transport and the services which directly improve the citizen's way of life, as well as the fantastic choice of goods and services available to consumers.
Outside Europe in recent years there has been a well managed economy and strong growth in the United States, which is good for us. The UK economy itself has been well managed, although the strength of the pound outside the eurozone is a serious threat to some sectors of manufacturing industry and to British farming. However, the good performance in the USA and at home should not mistakenly lead us to believe that the EU economy as a whole is stagnant. That is, of course, quite untrue. According to the figures issued at the end of 1999, the gross product of the EU grew by 2.5 per cent in 1997; by 2.6 per cent in 1998; by 2.1 per cent in 1999; and will probably grow by 3 per cent in 2000.
Even when the tiger economies of south-east Asia were running at full tilt, in money terms the EU economy grew by more than the economies of all those member states and China together. EU businesses are clearly very competitive in export markets and inflation is at low levels. Of course unemployment is too high in some member states—not all, perhaps, because last year five member states had a lower level of unemployment than the United Kingdom—but a large number of jobs are being created in areas such as telecoms, audio-visual services, information technology and so on. This is more than off-setting the fall in jobs in the older industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, referred to the great increase in unemployment which is occurring in Europe. That is not correct of course. Over a period of four years—including the estimate for this year—for four years in a row, continuously, unemployment fell in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Austria, Portugal, Finland and Sweden. So unemployment is clearly moving down as the economies are doing relatively well.
As has been stressed, the economic performance has been underpinned by the single market—a creation of the European Community strongly supported by Britain—and this has been at a time when there has been a very difficult challenge to change towards a greater information economy. But let us recall that the good UK performance is not independent of the European Union. It is within the European Union that we are doing well.
Thirdly, it is sometimes asserted—it has been asserted here quite often today—that the European Union is moving towards a superstate. As a British parliamentarian, I do not want a European superstate, and I can be fully confident that I am not going to get it.
There are two principal reasons for this. The first reason is evident—namely, that it is not what the people of Europe want. If the people do not want it, it will not happen. In my view, those who believe in a superstate are walking with dinosaurs. The second

1863
reason is, of course, that there is no government structure for a superstate in Europe. Obviously the European Commission is not such a structure. It does not even have the power of decision except in some specific areas such as competition. Much of the confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the way in which decisions are taken in the European Union. All the important legislative decisions in the European Union—except, perhaps, for some relating to competition and state aids—are taken by the Ministers of the member states in the Council, increasingly in co-decision with the European Parliament.
I am quite baffled by the many references to decisions by the Commission. Of course the Commission, under delegated authority, presents quite a lot of secondary legislation, that is quite clear—too much, in my opinion—but it is not bureaucrats who take the important decisions in the Community. It is not even the commissioners. They have a role, but they certainly do not take the vital decisions; they are taken by the Ministers of the member states. I note that there are one or two former British commissioners present today.
If there were a move towards a superstate, we could expect to see that in an inter-governmental conference, when member states can of course decide, by unanimity, to change the treaty. But what is the agenda of the current IGC? It is elegantly described by our diplomats as "the left-overs from Amsterdam". It is certainly not a move towards a superstate. If it were, the UK—and no doubt other member states—would simply refuse it.
On the contrary, the trend in Europe recently has been towards inter-governmental action, as shown by the foreign policy and, under strong impulsion from Britain, the steps towards more co-operation in defence, particularly for tasks like peacekeeping. These are not of course Community policies as under the Treaty of Rome. In any event, at least in regard to defence issues, they are also subject to unanimity.
In my view, the agenda of the European Union is not hidden at all; it is on the table. It is the enlargement of the Union, supported by the UK—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shore, that there will be huge changes and that the European Union will look quite different some years ahead—it is the implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty to improve our position on issues such as asylum, immigration and the fight against drugs and organised crime; it is the economic and monetary union, the single currency, on which the United Kingdom has an opt out. The British people—not the grandees nor, indeed, your Lordships—will
decide in a referendum whether they wish to opt into the single currency. There is plenty of time and no need to panic. If the British people decide against it, the great big world will keep on turning and the current advantages of UK membership of the Union will continue.
For myself, I think that the European Union is now at cruising speed. It does not need great initiatives; it does not need much new legislation; the volume of Commission proposals is in any event falling; the
1864
volume of regulations and directives enacted by the Council and Parliament, compared with last year, was also down. Between 1997 and 1999 the average number of regulations and directives enacted each year by the Council and Parliament in co-decision was 24. As regards regulations and directives enacted by the Council alone, it is often forgotten how many are repealed or which expire each year. Between 1997 and 1999 the average number of legislative Acts repealed or expired each year was 45 higher than the number of new enactments. Over the three years the number of enactments from this source was down by 135. Sometimes in Britain we could learn a little from that!
Finally, I should like to say a brief word on trade. I do not want to enter into the argument of how many jobs depend on our membership of the European Union, but of course it is true that our exports of goods and services to the rest of Europe in 1999 were worth about £135 billion, of which £117 billion went to the European Union, and our exports to the USA, an important market, were worth £36 billion. The total value of our trade in goods and services, exports and imports, to the rest of the European Union was about £240 billion. I do not know how important this is in all parts of the United Kingdom, but certainly in my region workers in factories such as those at BAe Systems in Bristol need withdrawal from Europe like a hole in the head.
I have spoken directly on the implications as defined in Clause 1 of this Bill. Of course there are matters on which we must continue to fight for a better deal for the United Kingdom. As a percentage of our GNP, we are the fifth largest net contributor, and we should try to adjust policies to bring this down. It would be even higher had we not had a brilliant negotiation by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, which brought about the rebate and which was a magnificent effort. Overall, I hope that the noble Lord will actively study not the implications of withdrawal from the European Union but the implications of the possible withdrawal of this Bill.
2.57 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for introducing this Bill today. In doing so, I also congratulate him on the clear way in which he explained the objectives of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, in a supportive speech, said that this was a modest Bill. Modest it may be but I believe that the service it will perform, if passed, cannot be overestimated. To my knowledge, no parliamentary committee has ever been charged with the task of examining the implications of withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union. In itself I find that rather extraordinary, because here we are, being led along in a sort of trance towards the cementing in of the last building block of the European Union superstate ideal—namely, monetary union—from which there will be no escape if we join. We may well be asked to

1865
do this without having the benefit of a committee set up by Parliament to consider the implications of that withdrawal.
How can we expect to have a balanced and well-informed debate without such a report? I fully support everything that my noble friend Lord Boardman said in this regard. Not so long ago I received a fax—some of your Lordships may well have received a similar one—which invited me to vote on whether I would like to keep the pound or join the euro. There were two big boxes on this fax and your Lordships may not be surprised to know that I put my tick in the box to keep the pound. About a month later I received another fax from the same organisation, giving me the result of the poll. It showed that 90 per cent were in favour of keeping the pound and just 10 per cent were in favour of joining the euro.
Other national opinion polls that can be read in the newspapers show slightly less spectacular results, but similar ones. There can be no doubt that the public are not behind this project; so how is it that this Government, by their own admission, spent £6.3 million pounds last year, making Whitehall's computers compatible with the single currency? This year the figure will be £20 million, and goodness knows how much money will be thrown into the project next year.
The Daily Mail reported these facts on Friday, 10th March. It went on to say:
"There is one curious omission in New Labour's plans for a brave new future in the eurozone. Not a single detailed argument has yet been advanced for abolishing the pound. No White Paper, no official analysis of the pros and cons. Indeed, on this most crucial of issues, the Government seems to have taken a trappist vow of silence. Instead, it uses our money to edge ever closer to the euro, hoping that by the time of the referendum voters will consider the whole issue a fait accompli. Welcome to democracy New Labour style".
I could not have put it better myself.
I believe that the days of a nervous and inward-looking post-war Europe are over. Almost 50 years have passed since European integration appeared to be the Continent's only salvation and a lot of things have changed in that time. I hesitate to give your Lordships even an elementary history lesson, but Germany has become an unequivocally democratic state and the Soviet Union is no longer a threat and is seeking to adopt democracy. Against that backdrop, the United States Government, or at least many members of it and of the Congress, have become rightly concerned that European integration and the development of a common foreign and security policy as well as the idea of the European security and defence initiative will undermine rather than strengthen the Western alliance. My noble friend Lord Vivian, with far greater knowledge on these matters than I, spoke most strongly on that point.
Above all, the world economy has become in the truest sense of the word global. Who would have predicted in those dark post-war days that by the end of the century business would be conducted on the Internet and money transferred around the world by the touch of a button? As has already been said, we are
1866
now the fourth largest economy in the world. It is absurd to say that we could not survive on our own. All our history down the years shows us that we have always been an outward-looking nation on the world stage. With the enormous opportunities which e-commerce now offers, surely this is not the moment to be tying ourselves irrevocably to the over-regulated and outdated Euroland project. Instead, we could negotiate a bilateral free trade agreement with the EU, such as those enjoyed by Switzerland and Norway. Incidentally, both countries export more per capita to the EU under these agreements than we currently do. Mexico, a NAFTA member—my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch referred to that—has just negotiated a comprehensive FTA with the EU. We should bear very much in mind that the World Trade Organisation has brought average international tariffs down to 3.5 per cent and is aiming for zero.
My final point, and for me the most important, is the conveyor belt of EU-appointed committees which seem set on producing a never ending stream of unimaginative, protectionist and inward-looking papers which give birth to ever more rules and regulations. This is where we really suffer, because we have never really properly understood the rules of the club. Our European allies know that rules were made to be broken, or at least massaged in such a way as to make them more acceptable to their people. Above all, they do not set up mighty regulatory bodies to ensure that they are assiduously observed to the letter, often persecuting their own entrepreneurial countrymen. That is all too often the unfortunate result of the way we react to EU directives.
If one takes all these factors together, there must be an irresistible argument for at least looking at the possibility of withdrawing from the European Union. This is a crystallising moment in our history. We must take control of our destiny. The only way we can do this is by encouraging debate and having the facts and the arguments at our disposal. This Bill, if passed, will provide us with an invaluable source of authoritative material. That is all I am asking for. I therefore give my wholehearted support to the Bill and wish it well on its passage through Parliament and, it is to be hoped, onto to the statute book.
3.5 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for providing the opportunity for this debate. It has been revealing. It has demonstrated clearly the depth of conviction with which people hold certain views. It has demonstrated also the range of expertise and knowledge and the particular focus that individual Members bring to the subject. It has been a debate worth having.
It has also shown a critical aspect, which has come through as a kind of leitmotiv. We are all concerned, not merely with our own attitudes towards membership of the European Union, but with the attitudes that are taken towards that membership by the United States and the attitudes that we take to the United States. It is an important background factor.

1867
I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention two recent statements from Americans which have caught my attention and which illustrate the depth of the argument.
Speaking in February 1998 during the Prime Minister's visit, the President of the United States said of the alliance between Britain and the United States, as it moves into the 21st century:
"Our … alliance embraces the idea of a Europe strong, prosperous, democratic, and undivided for the first time in history. So as Britain maintains its friendship with America, it is playing a leading role in shaping that new Europe: a healthy European Union, reaching out to new members".
That is an optimistic description of the situation. But we should be foolish indeed to ignore that perception in the White House and that standpoint of the US administration.
I should like to refer also to a remark made recently by an American, Madeleine Albright, earlier this year. She quoted another American official, who said that,
"the relationship between the United States [the American Union] and the European Union may be the most important, influential and prosperous bilateral relationship of modern times";
and went on to say:
"The United States and Europe enjoy the largest economic relationship in the world".
She gave the figure that it represents and expressed the position graphically by saying,
"Half of the goods and services produced in the world are made in the US or the EU".
So, although the debate has focused on the narrower question of our membership of the European Union and whether it should be re-examined, we must all be acutely conscious that we do not examine that relationship in isolation. It must be seen in the perspective of the transatlantic alliance and, indeed, the future of the Western world.
The debate has been enlivened throughout by vivid phrases. Some particularly caught my attention. I enjoyed the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to combine the "octopus" and the "juggernaut" into a single fearsome picture. We then had the "wing mirrors of Europe", which is an enjoyable phrase, and "walking the plank into the Atlantic" from my noble friend Lord Avebury. And, interestingly, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, speaking with all the authority of his experience, that the European Union is "cruising"—an interesting term—and that it does not require any great new initiatives. Clearly, from the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, there is no secret agenda to the European Union, conspiratorial or beneficent. The fact is, if you want to know what is there, read it. That is still my view on the referendum in 1975. We were asked, not whether we wanted to join—that decision had been taken by Parliament—but whether we wanted to stay in Europe. I participated in some of the debates and I remember them well. From the frequency with which the opening paragraph of the Treaty of Rome was quoted, I do not think that anybody could have been in any doubt that, on its own treaty, it was at least the ambition of the European
1868
Union to enter into ever-closer union. What that meant, how it would be defined and what the constitutional implications would be, and are, still remain matters of great dispute. On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, makes it quite clear that there is no secret agenda; on the other hand, many noble Lords in this debate have indicated that they believe there is.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It may well be that those in Parliament were able to look at the first paragraph of the Treaty of Rome, but the British public at large were unable to do that; they were simply asked whether they wished to remain in the Common Market.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, all I can say in response is that at the time I was a broadcaster involved in many BBC programmes. I recall frequently putting up on a screen the opening clause of the Treaty of Rome. On the whole, I believe that BBC viewers and the voters of this country were well able to read and understand something of such obvious clarity. Whether they agreed with it is another matter, but I am sure that they were able to understand it.
On these Benches our position is that if the true implications of withdrawal from the European Union are assessed in terms of the economy, national security and the constitution—the three criteria in the Bill—the consequences are deeply worrying and in some cases disastrous. I should like to focus briefly on one aspect of the economic consequence. In this debate many noble Lords have referred to the economic dimension. One factor that is worth looking at closely is the implication for foreign direct investment flows (FDIs). It has been said on both sides of the argument this afternoon with some satisfaction—we are all very pleased about it—that the United Kingdom remains the top destination inside the European Union for FDIs from outside the EU. The UK accounts for 28 per cent of the total, which is a very high figure. However, one startling factor appears if one looks at the figure more closely. Of Britain's top 20 exporters, 10 are foreign owned. Of those 10, 60 per cent of their exports go from the UK to other parts of the European Union. That is a highly significant factor.
A number of my noble friends have quoted from the report by Andersen Consulting entitled Business, Britain and Europe: the First 25 Years, with which I had some involvement. The report states that the companies which I have just described,
"have not invested solely to get access to the UK but have instead seen the UK as a valuable entry point to the wider EU market".
Whatever else is to be examined by the body proposed by the noble Lord, it would certainly need to listen very carefully to those 10 companies and to others as to the actual impact.
Lying behind this debate is the question which some have made explicit but all noble Lords recognise as being implicit: if Britain withdrew from the European Union what would its position be? Would we retire into splendid isolation? Would we become, as I believe

1869
the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, once said, an offshore island—in effect, the independent merchant venturers of the 21st century—with the same privileged status in world trade as Singapore and other such places? That is one possibility. The other possibility is perhaps that the UK would seek to negotiate some kind of free trade association with the European Union; and it might also seek to negotiate an arrangement with the North Atlantic Free Trade Association.
As to all those options, if we look at the risk and price of staying within the EU how much more so must we rigorously examine the risk and price of the alternatives? The risk of the North American Free Trade Agreement is of extraordinary proportions.
The team in the United Kingdom at present—I believe that there are over 30 members—will report to Congress on the implications of UK withdrawal from the EU and possible membership of NAFTA. I checked yesterday with the United States Embassy on the detailed terms of reference. They specifically disallow the team, first, from examining the feasibility of either of these two courses of action being in practice negotiable; and, secondly, they explicitly exclude the geopolitical dimension of either course of action. Both those issues need to be well considered. I think that the chances of successfully negotiating a relationship with NAFTA which would give us a degree of influence in NAFTA commensurate with the degree of influence we have within the European Union in shaping the future are unimaginable.
I turn to national security. I have noted in recent months that one of the gentlemen most frequently quoted in this House is Mr Strobe Talbott. I wonder whether he knows the compliment that we continue to pay him. We all quote slightly different paragraphs of the same speech. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, quoted the unfortunate Mr Strobe Talbott, perhaps I may have a go at him again. It is worth listening to him on the question of the ESDI. He said:
"As for ESDI, I think I should repeat what I said … There should be no confusion about America's position on the need for a stronger Europe. We are not against; we are not ambivalent; we are not anxious; we are for it. We want to see a Europe that can act effectively through the Alliance"
—and this is the key part of the quotation—
"or, if NATO is not engaged, on its own. Period, end of debate".
That is one man's view. It is the view of the Administration at this point. But to fool ourselves when talking about the national security dimension that somehow the clear American position is that we move would be quite wrong. As the new Secretary-General of NATO, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said in a significant article some weeks ago, the position post-Kosovo where Europe does not play its full and equivalent part, where we do not have an identity in defence terms, is not sustainable politically.
I was in the United States only a week ago. I mentioned this matter when I returned. If one talks widely to Americans on the issue, it is not top of their agenda—certainly not in their election year. But they are irritated by the inequality of contribution that is made. They will not always be willing to bail us out.
1870
They will not always be willing to make up the logistical gap. It is perfectly true that at this point we cannot fill that logistical gap. The satellite systems are not there; the lift capacity is not in place. There are many factors which are not in place. But for us to say, "Well, even to talk of doing anything about this would call into doubt the American alliance", is self-delusion.
The final part of the Bill goes to the heart of the emotion of the debate; it is important to recognise that emotion. It is about the constitution, democracy and sovereignty. There are clearly differing views in the House about sovereignty. I believe, as I think do these Benches, that for sovereignty to be real today it has to be pooled and shared. In the interdependent globalised world it is unreal to try to hold on to the idea that on your own you will be able to shape key elements. After all, sovereignty is not only a defensive concept; it is a pro-active concept. It is not only that we can say no; it is also that we can say, "We would like to. We can. We want to shape things. We want to change things". Pooling sovereignty to that end has had enormous effect.
It is an honour to us that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is in the Chamber listening to the debate. Surely it is an important factor of her premiership that the decision to proceed with the single market, with all that that involved, meant that in that dimension of the construction of Europe Britain had an enormous influence. We shaped, altered and set the pace. We would never have done so had we not been playing a full part.
As regards democracy, many factors were present in the Iberian peninsular and now in eastern Europe to bring forward its cause. But we would be wrong to discount the impact of the EU. The fact is that no country is able to join the EU unless it can demonstrate that it is a genuine multi-party democracy. I remember well the period when Greece's negotiations for membership were suspended because the junta took over in a coup. I remember the fury and disbelief on the part of that ghastly regime in Athens that that had happened and that the door had been closed. But, most certainly, the door had been closed and that was an important pressure.
I believe that when the history of what is happening in eastern and central Europe becomes more clearly know, the great magnet and pull of democracy as part of EU membership, the confirmation that in belonging to the EU they belong to a modern, pluralistic, forward-looking international community, will have exerted great influence.
A question in the debate is: from what do we draw our confidence? There are those who would say—and the noble Lord, Lord Shore, expressed it as eloquently as only he could—that at the end of the day the confidence with which we face the future should be born of our history. We should draw from the well of our national experience and achievement. Given that history, we do not need the buttress, the support, of belonging to this or that. That is one view.
Another view is that Europe is a great risk, a juggernaut and an octopus and it is at our throats because it is not at our feet. It is also that we do not win

1871
the arguments in Europe; that somehow, if this great thing rolls forward yet again, we shall not be there leading it and steering it; that we may not be able to influence it; and that we probably will not be able to break it. We are losers and therefore we should get as far away from this as possible.
It is my powerfully held conviction that we are in an incredibly fortunate position inside the EU. That is not to revert to the old theory of the three circles in its original Churchillian form, but there was a great truth in it. Our language has become the language of the world. It has also become the majority language of the European institutions. Interestingly, it is increasingly the language of the European construction. It gives us a huge advantage and it is a major reason why we have huge direct investment flows. So let us use it.
The special relationship with the United States is a real factor, but it is not an alternative. In the language of corporate strategy, we should "lever" it in order to maximise our position in the EU; so, too, our friendship and traditional links with the Commonwealth. The moment that we start to see those things as alternatives to the European Union and not as the means for our great success within the European Union, the pessimism that underlies the Bill will be justified. I believe profoundly that it is not.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, our commitment to membership of the European Union does not relieve us of the task of discussing and debating legitimate questions about the future ambit, the purpose and the running of the European Union; nor should it. Therefore, today I welcome the many contributions that have been made. I welcome the presence of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, who, characteristically, has been in her place throughout the debate. My noble friend gave me my first job on the Front Bench some 14 years ago, among other things, to introduce football membership cards throughout the 1992 league grounds. I feel that I face a similar challenge this afternoon in winding up the debate from these Benches.
The European Union is a work in progress which must constantly debate its directions, its speed and its geometry, and which must soon change its rules to accommodate the applicants at its door. Its political and economic order are by no means settled. Throughout its history it has constantly outgrown its old treaties as it has added new members and new functions. The model of enlargement for a reformed and reunited Europe is one such legitimate question. Britain's membership of the single currency is another, and remains to be decided, a debate which the disingenuous campaign, "Out of Europe, out of work", regrettably obscures.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, calmly reflected, the European Union and its institutions are not above criticism. That was made all too clear by the crisis in the Commission a year ago when the report of the committee of independent
1872
experts revealed widespread fraud and mismanagement as well as a culture of complacency, a lack of accountability, incompetence, arrogance and favouritism in the Commission. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity for debate.
Yesterday, in another place, we called for a debate on the IGC. We need one. Indeed, there is much that should be debated and all too little opportunity to do so: the strengthening of the principle of subsidiarity; the reform of the powers of the European Court; the reform of the European Union budget; an examination of the European aid programme; our approach to the common fisheries policy; the reform, as we have heard today, of the common agricultural policy, which we are all agreed is simply not sustainable in its present form, let alone in an enlarged Europe; and the need to prevent billions of pounds of public money being squandered—at the last count, £3 billion—through fraud and mismanagement. We could spend time profitably discussing any one of those examples.
Likewise, as my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth highlighted, there are many legitimate questions to be raised with regard to the European defence and security identity and the EU common foreign and security policy. With regard to the ESDI, I shall restrict myself to saying simply that this is a deeply complex subject which, if handled ineptly, could impact disastrously on NATO, particularly in the light of possible ramifications from the recent NATO spy allegations and the reports of disagreements between the French and the United States during Operation Allied Force.
In terms of the CFSP, we have already seen cracks appearing. The statements of Javier Solana, as high representative for the CFSP, on the desirability of an EU representation on the UN Security Council as part of what he calls,
"the integration project for the next decade".
as well as President Prodi's statements on the need for a European army, raise questions over the extent to which an enlarged Europe of eventually perhaps 30 nations can effectively develop a consensus on foreign and security policy without impairing national foreign policy decision-making.
As my noble friend Lord Pearson, to whom I am grateful for securing time today, has made clear, his Bill seeks to establish a committee of inquiry into the implications of withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union. I shall have a large number of additional papers to read in the Library and, along with a number of my noble colleagues in this House, I shall study the Bill carefully. I note that possibly my noble friend considers himself eligible as chairman and as representative of the constitution of the United Kingdom. I note also that under Clause 1(4) the person nominated under subsection (2)(c), which refers to the constitution of the United Kingdom, should be nominated as chairman of the committee. I believe that there is a typographical error and that that should refer to (3)(c). Maybe it was meant to be slipped under our noses in order that my noble friend would be well positioned to claim chairmanship of the committee.

1873
My noble friend has done us a great favour. It is important that from these Benches we state very clearly where the Conservative Party stands. I very much welcome this debate, not least because it gives me an opportunity to reject the argument that we should withdraw from the European Union. Indeed, the Conservative Party has always understood not only how important Britain is to Europe, but also how important Europe is to Britain.
We are committed not only to our membership of the European Union but to making a success of that membership. That is why we made the application to join the then Common Market in the 1960s. That is why a Conservative government took the United Kingdom into Europe a decade later. That is why we were the architects of perhaps Europe's most successful project, the internal market, in the 1980s.
We are committed to Europe as a force for good, enhancing prosperity, creating the conditions in which businesses can flourish and jobs can be created. Our membership is crucial to our trade, our wealth and our quality of life.
It is the Government's view, however, that
"once in each generation, the case for Europe needs to be made from first principles".
I do not agree. Of course, if as Prime Minister one has entered Parliament on a platform of withdrawal one may need to return to first principles, but not us.
As we have seen today, political parties are broad churches and encompass many shades of opinion, which in a democracy is a welcome thing, nurturing and encouraging debate and discussion as it does. I have no wish to trade insults about whose party contains more Europhiles, Eurosceptics or Eurorealists. But I would ask the Minister why Britain in Europe's most recent campaign is "Out of Europe, out of work" when, to my knowledge—a point echoed by a number of your Lordships—withdrawal from Europe is not the official policy of a single mainstream party in this country.
Can the Minister also explain why the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research was forced to describe Britain in Europe's portrayal of its support in the campaign as a wilful distortion of the facts? As The Economist put it last month:
"Quitting the EU is not on the agenda, unless Mr Blair unwittingly puts it there by his exaggerations. What Britons are discussing is whether, while staying in the EU, they should also join the single currency. Instead of taking part in this debate, Mr Blair pretends that the question itself is illegitimate. It is no way to remake the case for Europe".
The central point, which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, is that this year is critically important for the European Union. For the European Union today stands at a crossroads. I firmly believe that the way in which we respond to all and any of the issues I have just raised will be shaped by the way in which we choose to manage two key challenges.
The first is the imminent historic enlargement of Europe. The second is the reality of new technology and the new knowledge-based global economy. Europhiles and Eurosceptics alike are all agreed on the
1874
need for change. The question is not whether Europe needs to change, but, rather, how it will change. Standing still is not an option.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, stated, we have the opportunity to refashion our relationship with Europe. Enlargement means that membership of the European Union will almost double. The candidate countries account for 170 million people. If all the candidates join, the European Union will comprise nearly 550 million inhabitants of staggering diversity—from Finland to Malta, from Ireland to Lithuania. From these Benches, we have always been passionate and vigorous supporters of EU enlargement on a basis that is fair and affordable. Such enlargement will serve to enhance European security and is critical for European trade.
Enlargement is also a historic opportunity to advance the principles for which we believe Europe should stand—free trade, free markets, deregulation and co-operation. Yet enlargement is also a watershed. It is a time to assess the Europe which those new members will be joining. An enlarged European Union cannot conceivably continue to operate with procedures designed for 15 members or fewer.
It is not a time to determine whether far-reaching and visionary changes will be required for we know that they will be. Indeed, it is a time to ensure that those new members find themselves in a wider, flexible Europe which has adapted to the needs of a much more disparate group of member states, rather than in a regulatory, interventionist, deeper Europe.
The recognition of the need for Europe to change is wholly compatible with support for enlargement. That need for change is predicated on the realities of a diverse and enlarged Europe within a fast-changing world. We know that one size will not fit all. It is therefore critical to find a way in which the diversities inherent in a Europe of certainly 20 new member states, and perhaps 25 or 26, including the diversities of national interest, can be accommodated without undermining the spirit of the European project but at the same time without attempting to shoe-horn Europe into a rigid straitjacket of uniformity.
The crucial intergovernmental conference this year will present the European Union with a stark choice between two visions and Europe will not be able to shy away from the question of how to develop an effective decision-making process for the newly enlarged European Union, without which it will be paralysed by gridlock.
At the crossroads at which Europe stands, one direction leads to the creation of a modern, flexible Europe of nation states through the introduction of flexibility provisions. Those provisions would provide a basis for a different approach by different member states, reflecting the divergences which inevitably arise as a result of different national circumstances and would provide an effective response to the challenges of the global economy and a reality of a Europe strengthened by its diversity.

1875
In the other direction lies an alternative vision: where there is talk of the Commission, step by step, behaving like a growing government; where there is talk of a European army, a European government, a single legal area with outline plans for a corpus juris and a European prosecutor and no role for the national veto; where there is talk of deeper integration and harmonisation, more majority voting; where there is talk of one tax policy, one employment policy, one defence policy and one foreign policy.
The latter risks leading to an uncompetitive, inward-looking, protectionist Europe in which a majority of European Union states could override the wishes of a minority through a large extension of QMV. Yet each member state will have different interests, different views, different perspectives. While every member state must accept the rights and responsibilities of the single market and the core elements of an open, free-trading and competitive Europe, can the Minister explain why, outside the core areas, the provision could not be incorporated into the treaty which would allow countries not to participate in new legislative actions at a European level which they wished to handle at a national level?
There is precedent for such flexibility. The Maastricht Treaty calls for subsidiarity. The Amsterdam Treaty, as has been noted in the debate, allows some flexibility. It allows groups of members to proceed at different speeds and allows some to proceed to establish further co-operation among themselves, subject to the provisions of the treaty.
The principle of flexibility should be allowed to work both ways. It would not block some countries from going ahead with new legislation if they wished to do so. We cannot expect to be allowed to opt out of integration in our own interests without them recognising the corresponding rights of other countries to opt in if they perceive it to be in theirs. The model is already in place. It is already used for the single currency and for the Schengen agreement on borders. It would not affect existing legislation at all. It would enable European Union institutions and procedures to cope with a much larger membership. It would safeguard the European Union's future viability and provide genuine accountability, via national governments, for decisions adopted. It would stop non-essential new legislation from being forced upon any other country against its will.
On Wednesday, your Lordships' House discussed the need for policies of free enterprise and deregulation to ensure that European businesses can compete in an increasingly competitive world. A new economy is emerging; an economy which is intrinsically global. Electronic commerce is, and will continue, breaking down national barriers to trade. In such a world, it is precisely the wrong approach for Europe to concentrate on looking inwards, creating new centralised political structures.
We want to see an open, internationalist, outward-looking Europe. That involves seizing the historic opportunity presented by enlargement to set the seal
1876
on the principles of free trade and free enterprise in the former communist dictatorships. It involves Europe pioneering the idea of international free trade, starting with its immediate neighbours, proceeding with an alliance between the European Union and NAFTA, to extend the free trade zone across the Atlantic—that is what we should be talking about with NAFTA—and moving from there to tackle the challenge of global free trade by 2020. It involves Europe completing the internal market, including electronic commerce and financial services; bringing more choice and lower prices to Europe's consumers. It involves Europe concentrating on the enforcement of competition rules and on a programme of deregulation.
Europe should be realising its full potential and becoming a driving force for greater prosperity. Britain has an historic opportunity to chart such a route and to lead Europe along it so that it is outward looking, low regulation, low tax, free enterprise and flexible.
3.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this important debate. A wide range of views has been expressed and many points raised. We have heard some extremely fine speeches; a veritable feast. Some might describe it as "a battle of the Titans". We have had the vigour and rigour of my noble friend Lord Harrison; the skilful and rapier-like erudition of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe; the siren call of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington; the passion of my noble friend Lord Shore and the acidity of my noble friend Lord Stoddart; the humour and sagacity of the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Avebury; and the sound commercial good sense of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. We have been treated also to the calm cogency of the noble Lords, Lord Williamson of Horton and Lord Watson.
We have watched a delightful sight indeed: the delicate tightrope walked by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who had to try to reconcile the irreconcilable difficulties in his party's position towards Europe and clarify its commitment to Europe. That is its official policy. But as Michael Heseltine wrote, in an Independent on Sunday article entitled, "They won't say it but they want us out" on 27th February this year, its unofficial policy is otherwise. Last, but by no means least, I mention the entertaining cynicism of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, whom I thank for the opportunity to enjoy such richness, although I am not entirely sure that it all suits my digestion. I am pleased to say that the balance of speeches was such as to ensure that the concerns raised by one noble Lord were answered almost immediately by the noble Lord who followed. Thus I am in the happy position of not having to respond to the minutiae of each excellent speech. We have been tempted and delighted by the excellent speeches of all noble Lords today.

1877
I shall try to be brief and focus on the key themes raised by noble Lords and at the same time make clear the Government's position. There will inevitably be a number of smaller points to which I shall have to respond in writing. However, at this stage perhaps I may reassure my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington that Sub-Committee A has retained its scrutiny powers and will protect this function jealousy.
In its first incarnation, the Bill laid before this House called for Sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 to be repealed. That would put us in clear breach of our international obligations under the European Treaties and precipitate our withdrawal from the European Union. The Bill now calls for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set up a committee of inquiry to examine the question of withdrawal.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. There are two separate Bills. The first Bill to which she referred is still "in the queue" and probably will not go forward. However, it is the Bill we debated on 31st January 1997 in your Lordships' House when we passed it by 52 votes to 51 because its Second Reading was challenged. This Bill is an altogether more innocent creature. I believe it has produced the debate which we all wanted.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have all been delighted by its innocence so far and perhaps can see it for what it is.
For this Government, the question to be asked in this debate is: what would be in the best interests of the United Kingdom? The benefits of EU membership are evident. Many noble Lords have commented upon that. Put simply, we are convinced that membership is in our political and economic interests. To pretend anything else would be to make a historic miscalculation.
The European Union always has been, and must remain, more than just a free trade area. It is directly relevant to our prosperity and because of that is directly relevant to jobs. It improves the quality of life both here and abroad. It gives us peace and security and increases our influence on the world stage.
The scale of those benefits will increase still further in the enlarged union which we shall see in the next decade. The single market now comprises 372 million customers or 38 per cent of the world trade. It is based on fundamental principles of free movement of goods, services, people and capital. Fifty-eight per cent of UK trade in goods is with our EU partners. That business represents 3.5 million British jobs. The UK not only has access to the single market; it shapes it too. If we were to withdraw from the EU, the majority of the benefits that accrue would at least be severely curtailed and, in some cases, entirely removed.
The single market benefits customers as well as businesses. To give only two examples: it has helped to halve prices on European telephone calls and European flights. We have had mention of that today. Perhaps I may give one example. A flight to Rome in 1989 cost £222 but by 1999 it was reduced to £118.
1878
An EU, enlarged to include the 12 candidates currently in negotiations, will create the largest single market for trade and investment in the world, with a total population of over 480 million. Enlargement is opening up new markets for British business. Britain already exports over £3,000 million worth of goods and services to the first five applicants from central Europe.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created by investments in companies that see Britain as the best gateway into the single market. The UK receives 27 per cent of all investment into the EU. There are 5,700 American and 1,000 Japanese companies based in the UK. In the past year alone, more than 44,000 new jobs have been created by foreign investment. These international companies are manufacturing from the UK for the whole of Europe, not only the UK market.
Perhaps of more specific interest to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, are the particular benefits enjoyed by Scotland. Inward investment because of membership of the EU has caused the "Silicon Glen" phenomena. Scotland has only 1 per cent of Europe's population, but it has 15 per cent of the total EU semi-conductor capacity. It provides 32 per cent of branded PCs in Europe, 65 per cent of Europe's automated teller machines, and 80 per cent of Europe's workstations. Let us be frank: withdrawal would decimate these markets. Is that really what noble Lords would like to see? Although we have talked about examination of withdrawal from Europe, it is important to acknowledge what lies behind such a removal. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was brave and candid enough to make that clear.
The EU has also opened up new opportunities for ordinary people to live, work, study and retire abroad. One hundred thousand British people now work across Europe, while 200,000 have retired to other EU countries. Without agreement between EU member states, this freedom would not be possible.
Free movement of goods legislation protects British producers. It stops other member states from preventing the import of British goods legally marketed or produced in the UK. Nor can other EU countries shut British firms out of public contracts. If they do, they can be taken to the European Court of Justice.
Some would argue that we could reap these benefits simply by concluding a free trade agreement with the rest of Europe. A number of noble Lords mentioned this in their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked specifically if we could continue to benefit from the EEA. We are not members of the EEA; we are members of the EU. That gives us greater and wider benefits. We might be able to join the EEA, but this would by no means be automatic. This is to miss the point completely. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, when he said that we have tried free trade agreements in the past and they failed.
Our access to the single market would be guaranteed only for so long as it suited others to allow it. Noble Lords can be sure that if, for whatever reason, we enjoyed a significant competitive advantage, the

1879
EU would seek to restrict access. Moreover, we would have no say over how rules for the single market would develop. The interests of UK producers would no longer be protected and we would have a myriad of regulations growing up that discriminated against us.
There has been much merriment about the fact that it has taken almost 30 years to agree a chocolate directive. However, let us be absolutely clear: if we had been outside the EU, there would be have been a directive years ago, and it would have excluded UK products from the European market. So we must forget about the chimera of a free trade area. To suppose that we could negotiate terms to our advantage is naïve in the extreme. The UK, a great trading nation, would be disengaging from the world's biggest market.
Our place in the EU is equally relevant to a wider interest in stability and security in Europe and beyond. I agree wholeheartedly with all that has been said by a number of noble Lords in that regard. For the past five decades, together with NATO, the EU has helped to ensure an unprecedented period of peace among the nations of Western Europe. As several noble Lords have pointed out, EU membership has made war between partners inconceivable. In 1998 Britain and France took the initiative to strengthen Europe's common defences in a way that also strengthens NATO. Member states are now looking at ways of enhancing their military capabilities against headline goals. That gives us an opportunity to allow Europe to act as a force for good in the world.
Today the EU is one of the most effective mechanisms for forming a common front against drugs and organised crime. To give an example of the success this is producing, £57 million of drugs were seized in Operation Harry, a joint operation with Belgium and the Netherlands in 1998. Only last week the Prime Minister put forward some ideas for a step change in the EU Action Against Drugs. It is increasingly clear that cross-border crime requires cross-border solutions.
Protecting the environment is another challenge that manifestly requires cross-border solutions. A series of EU action programmes gives Britain a cleaner environment, better air quality, cleaner beaches and wildlife protection. Over the next five years, emissions from cars, light vans and lorries will be substantially reduced, in some cases by over 70 per cent. With enlargement, EU programmes will extend to countries where previously we had no influence.
The common foreign and security policy offers an important additional dimension to the UK's foreign policy by ensuring that European partners pursue shared objectives. This led to the package of sanctions against Milosevic, including an oil embargo, which helped accelerate Belgrade's acceptance of the international community's demands on Kosovo.
Our own trading influence is enhanced by EU membership. Lomé and EU/South Africa trade agreements are able to open the European market for Commonwealth countries, which would otherwise
1880
have faced protective barriers. We remember how passionately the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, dealt with that matter in his speech. It strengthened our position in trade negotiations. We are able to negotiate as a block on equal terms with, for example, the United States of America.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of our relationship with our friends the Americans. Britain has close ties with America. But, as the Prime Minister pointed out a few weeks ago, America wants Britain to be a strong ally in a strong Europe. I was delighted to hear the poor Mr. Strobe Talbott quoted yet again. The stronger we are in Europe, the stronger our relationship with America.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. This Bill does not propose withdrawal from Europe. It seeks to set up an inquiry, for which much of the speech of the noble Baroness would be powerful evidence. Is she opposed to an inquiry into what the consequences may be?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I make it plain that we are. If I can again adopt the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe—he said it so elegantly and eloquently—the Government are not minded to pursue a well-argued private prejudice. We have other things in which to invest money at this stage. We do not feel that investigation of this nature would be merited.
I recognise that many people sometimes feel a sense of frustration with the functioning of the EU and our relations with it. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has been a champion of such concerns for many years, and his anxieties were echoed by other noble Lords—the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, the noble Lords, Lord Moran, Lord Boardman, Lord Vivian and Lord Willoughby. However, I was rather alarmed to hear the slur on our cricketers. I believe that we have had a fine team in the past and can still win a few games.
Partly that concern reflects a justified dissatisfaction with specific policies, such as the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy. Partly it reflects anxiety at the direction the Union may take in the future. It also reflects unhappiness with the lack of effectiveness and efficiency demonstrated by the Union's key institutions.
The Government cannot and do not ignore such concerns. That is why we are actively working to improve the situation. Reform is necessary. It is being tackled by the parallel processes of non-treaty change and treaty change at the intergovernmental conference. We are playing a full role in support of both.
At the Lisbon European Council later this month we shall tackle economic reform. Britain is driving the debate, promoting economic dynamism and social justice. We have a chance to push our own goals—liberalisation, enforced by strong, independent institutions.

1881
It is appropriate that the first European Council of the new millennium will focus on jobs. This matches the priorities of our citizens. It is appropriate that we focus on it now because Europe is falling behind—the EU as a whole has created virtually no net jobs since 1990. Unemployment averages 10 per cent. That is unacceptable.
The EU faces challenges ahead. We must consider how to face a rapidly globalising world—a world increasingly based on innovation and knowledge, while retaining the essential features of our societies. I think that we can do that. But we shall have to adopt a new approach to building our economies so that we can provide full employment in Europe. If we do it correctly, Lisbon will be seen 10 years hence as the moment when Europe collectively decided to modernise to face the challenges of the new millennium.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, while I very much agree with what the noble Baroness has said about employment, does she accept that with regard to poverty, to which I referred, there are quite a lot of lessons which the European Union could teach us?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to accept that there are many things that we can learn from our European partners, and that together we have a much better chance of doing well.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I asked her view on an inquiry. If I understood her reply correctly, she objected to the cost of such an inquiry. If I have understood that correctly, would it help to overcome that problem if, at Committee stage of the Bill, we introduced an amendment to state that the cost of an inquiry would not fall upon the Treasury?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that the Companion states that frequent interventions, even with the consent of the noble Lord who is speaking, are undesirable.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the short answer to the question is no. Our primary reason for saying that is that we believe that such an inquiry is not necessary. If we believed that it was necessary, costs would not feature in that decision.
We have put forward several suggestions for concrete outcomes for the Council, which we think would show that Europe is ready to compete with the best in the world and that we intend to make sure that there is opportunity for everyone in our societies. We are pushing three essential components. The first is an innovation and knowledge-based economy—for example, we need to remove barriers to e-commerce and make the Internet as fast and cheap as anywhere. The second component is economic reform. We need a fully functioning single market. Thirdly, we want to renew the European social model, laying the foundations for full employment.
1882
Change has already taken place in the Commission. Following the resignation of the Santer Commission last year, it was clear that root and branch reform of working practices was needed. Since taking office in September 1999, Romano Prodi and Neil Kinnock have already implemented a number of reforms in the Commission. Mr Kinnock announced a comprehensive package of reform proposals, which were confirmed on 1st March.
We welcome these proposals. They represent an important programme which is an ambitious attempt to modernise the way the Commission is run. They focus on an overhaul of financial management, a much improved human resources policy, and a new system for setting priorities, allocating resources accordingly and evaluating the results. All these are objectives that we have long shared. We recognise that these reforms will take time to deliver. We look forward to regular updates on progress on the targets that the Commission has set itself and welcome the commitment to have the full programme in place by the end of 2002.
The Council of Ministers is also discussing its future. It is vital that, as enlargement proceeds, it remains effective and coherent. The Helsinki European Council in December 1999 endorsed a package of reforms designed to improve working practices, including a reduction in the number of Council formations.
The European Parliament is considering its own reforms. Negotiations are ongoing on the terms of a statute setting out terms and conditions for all MEPs. We attach particular importance to reform of the European Parliament's expenses system so that MEPs are reimbursed for the actual costs incurred in the performance of their duties. The Government hope that agreement will soon be reached.
The main reform project this year is the intergovernmental conference. Heads of state and government have already made clear that it should be relatively short and focused clearly on the institutional changes necessary for the next enlargement. It will focus on three issues discussed but not resolved at the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997: the size and composition of the Commission; the reweighting of votes in the Council of Ministers; and the possible extension of qualified majority voting. Provision was made for the inclusion of a few related and additional items. One noble Lord referred to this as the Amsterdam left-overs. There is no grand federal vision coming from the member states; nor is the UK isolated in any part of its approach to the conference. On the contrary, we have a positive agenda and are shaping the debate.
Concern has been expressed about the direction in which the Union is heading. What kind of Europe do we want to see? Do we want to see a Europe without any British presence or influence? I am sure that this would jeopardise not only the enlargement process but also the Union as it currently exists.
Is the answer the Conservative Party's interpretation of flexibility, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan? Again, I think not. Its

1883
suggestion is that individual member states should be allowed to opt out of specific pieces of legislation. This à la carte model would not be accepted by our European partners. Indeed, it would not work.
Allowing opt-outs would lead to the break-up of the single market. France, for example, would have opted out of the decision to lift the ban on UK beef. As it is, they are being taken before the European Court of Justice by the Commission for flouting their obligations. Were it otherwise, it would have been to our detriment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, made clear. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Bundestag has voted to lift the ban on beef in Germany. That would not have been achieved without our being in Europe.
The Government would like to see the UK continuing with its constructive role, on the front foot in pursuing our positive agenda for reform and enlargement. We are not isolated in Europe. On the contrary, we are positively engaging in the debate. There is not complete agreement—others push their visions as we push ours—but we need to be part of the debate to argue our corner.
What is in Britain's best interests? The Government feel there is only one possible answer to that question. It is not to withdraw from the European Union but to remain a full and leading member. That is the only way successfully to protect and promote Britain's interests.
The Government do not feel that it is necessary to set up an inquiry to reiterate this point, but it is not the Government's practice to oppose a Private Member's Bill at Second Reading in this House.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, even those who do not agree that an inquiry might be helpful. I am sure that much of what has been said will repay study in the columns of Hansard. I therefore do not intend to delay the House—although of course I am strongly tempted to return to the fray—but I do wish to refer to two points.
I shall even resist the temptation to complain to the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Avebury, one of whom referred to me as a xenophobe and the other who referred to me as a Europhobe. I thought I had made clear that I am a Europhile but that I am phobic about the Treaty of Rome.
The first of the two points that are so important that they bear comment was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, and picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, and indeed the Minister. It concerns the huge importance to this country of inward investment or foreign direct investment which they believe the single market attracts, or at least our membership of the European Union attracts. I think I mentioned earlier that new research out today casts doubt on this assumption. Indeed the Department of Trade and Industry regularly asks foreign investors why they invest in the United Kingdom and publishes the answers in its papers on British competitiveness.
1884
I have to say that neither membership of the European Union nor access to the single market has ever figured in the 10 most frequently cited reasons for investing in the United Kingdom, according to the department's circulars. Overseas investors say that they like our workforce, our infrastructure, the absence of corruption, our language, the business-friendly climate and our low taxes. No doubt they also like the cosmopolitan nature of London and our golf courses, but they do not mention our membership of the European Union or access to the single market through our membership of the European Union as one of the reasons for coming here.
The second point I shall touch on very briefly. It was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, in what I thought a quite excellent speech. It is that our attitude to the European Union is very important to the United States and its attitude towards us. The noble Lord quoted President Clinton and Madeleine Albright, who appear to have a rather rosy view of this connection with the European Union and the world generally. I would only comment that a very different view was put in London by the chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations European Committee, Senator Gordon Smith, last December. Senator Smith is clearly very worried that the new European defence initiative will undermine NATO, and he counselled heavily against it.
I agree that the Bill is not perfectly drafted and I am afraid it certainly contains one typographical error. My noble friend Lord Moynihan was right to spot that. I can see also that Clause 1(3) of the Bill, where the people who should form part of this committee are drawn up, might be thought to produce a committee too much like this debate today: one side taking one view and the other side taking entirely the opposite view so that the chairman might have an impossible job in bringing the committee to a sensible conclusion.
The point remains, however, that most speakers have supported the concept that more debate is necessary. Most speakers have supported the idea that an inquiry of this nature, even perhaps with a different composition—the Bill could, of course, be amended in Committee—would be very helpful to the national debate, which many of us feel has not yet taken place.
I am disappointed that the noble Baroness the Minister is unable to support the Bill as it stands. I think she was a little rough when she accused it of being the product of private prejudice. Certainly, she was quoting my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, but she did so with such approval that, especially as my noble and learned friend unfortunately is no longer here, I feel I can reprove her for repeating what he said. If the noble Baroness does not want to support the Bill and if other noble Lords do not want to support it, then I think they are running away from an inquiry and what the result might be. I would just say to them "Cowardy, cowardy, custard!" I commend the Bill to the House.

1885
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Copyright and Trade Marks Bill [H.L.]
4.14 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I congratulate those noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this debate on their fortitude in waiting while the Europeans have had their day in the sun. I know that a number of noble Lords who would have participated have, because of the length of the previous debate, had to leave for other commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, slipped me a note to apologise, as have a number of other noble Lords. I have to give a badge of honour to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. He should have been on the six o'clock plane to Scotland but he now tells me that he is on the midnight plane. Without in any way wishing to contravene the new rules on bribery and corruption, perhaps I may say that there is a dram waiting for him in the bar after the debate, if he cares to collect it.
When Talleyrand died, his old adversary Metternich was shown a telegram announcing the death of the great French statesman. "Now what does he mean by this?", said the old adversary. I can well believe that a number of noble Lords have looked at the Bill and wondered at my motives in bringing forward such legislation. So let me begin by stating clearly that I have no vested interest in bringing forward the Bill. It is skilfully drafted; and for that I am grateful to the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy and its professional advisers. But I have no commercial or professional interest or connection with either the alliance or any of its professional advisers.
To give a background to the interests which have motivated this attempt at legislation, it may be worth reading into the record the members of the alliance. They are: the Anti-Counterfeiting Group, Anti Copying in Design, the British Association of Record Dealers, the British Brands Group, British Music Rights, the British Phonographic Industry, the British Video Association, the British Software Alliance, the Copyright Licensing Agency, the European Leisure Software Publishers Association, the Federation Against Copyright Theft and the Newspaper Licensing Agency. In general, they may be described as representing the creative industries and our creative talent.
My motivator in bringing forward the Bill is no less a person than the Prime Minister himself. I have been much impressed by his call for Britain to make her way in the world in the new century by adding value, innovating and using our creative talents. I am sure he is right in pointing us in that direction. However, if that is the way ahead, we have to ensure that those who create and innovate are protected from the pirate and the counterfeiter if the full fruits of their talent are not to be stolen.
1886
My interest in the subject was sparked in the mid-1980s when I was for two years Director-General of the British Retail Consortium. I saw at first hand the value of brands and the need to protect the consumer from the fake and the shoddy. My interest was further stirred during the passing of the Competition Act when I acted in a supporting role to my noble friend Lord Ezra in helping the noble Lord, Lord Simon, see that piece of legislation onto the statute book. In some ways this Bill is the unfinished business from the Competition Act.
I am aware that the Minister may be awaiting the final shape and content of the European legislation in this area on both copyright and e-commerce. What I would say to that is that the European dimension should not be used as an excuse for foot-dragging and delay here at home. Quite frankly, the scale of the problem is too big and the speed of technological change too fast for these issues to chug along inside the department or in the Brussels labyrinth. I am reliably informed that the Minister will dead bat these proposals today. I sincerely hope not. If they are a dead bat, my speech is long enough for him rapidly to rewrite his speech in a more positive tone. A great deal of work has gone into the Bill. I hope that it clears the ground to enable the Government to move forward with speed and decisiveness, in Europe and with domestic legislation.
Time is not on our side if we are to create an environment in which talent and creativity can be properly rewarded and the consumer protected from criminals who see this as an area of easy pickings. I am a little disappointed. Looking across at the Benches opposite, I thought the Minister was sending for an urgent redraft of his speech as a result of my remarks!
I should declare an interest as president of the British Radio and Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association (BREMA). I in no way speak on its behalf today, but in separate representations to the Minister, Mr Kim Howells, BREMA made it clear that it wanted to see severe penalties for law breakers which would act as a deterrent to organised and large-scale law breaking. It is concerned, however, that laws should not be so tightly and unenforceably drawn as to pose a threat to otherwise law-abiding consumers. It stresses the need for a balance in legislation between rights holders, consumers and manufacturers.
I share the view that legislation should not seek to make outlaws of individual consumers, or for that matter innocent landowners. But we must not shut our eyes to large-scale organised crime, which is doing great damage to our creative industries. What is the point of having ideas, if some crook can just wait for a designer or entrepreneur to put in all the work and investment and then copy what people do and rip them off?
The Bill seeks to modernise, strengthen and bring consistency to existing laws in the area of copyright, trade marks and intellectual property. It seeks to ensure that those whose creativity will drive forward

1887
the UK economy in the 21st century will have sufficient protection to defend their ideas and sufficient incentive to innovate.
Many consumers still believe that buying a dodgy CD from a car boot sale or a street market is a victimless crime; and they see Parliament's inertia on the issue as an implicit green light to go ahead. Yet counterfeiting and piracy are not victimless, and their cost to the UK economy in social as well as monetary terms climbs every day. A survey last year undertaken by the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy revealed the true financial cost of bootlegging and counterfeiting. In 1998–99 British industry lost £6.42 billion to the pirates. Moreover, the Exchequer lost £1.08 billion in taxes which would have been paid by industry but which was not paid by the bootleggers. That money could have been spent on health or education, but instead lines the pockets of organised criminal gangs.
It is clear that organised crime is behind many of the counterfeiting and bootlegging operations in the UK. The image of the sole market trader, the Del Trotter or the Arthur Daley, selling a few fake designer T-shirts out of a suitcase in the high street is, sadly, wide of the mark. Investigations by the police, Customs and Excise, trading standards officers and the industry's own enforcement operations have established links time after time with criminal gangs involved with drugs and pornography, and even with terrorist groups.
Anything and everything can be, and is, copied and counterfeited, often putting the consumer in great danger. Counterfeit "Teletubby" bean-bags sold by a market trader in Chepstow were potential killers. Marked "non-flammable", in tests the bags were engulfed in flame within 90 seconds. Even worse, following reports of a meningitis epidemic in Niger, the international community responded by sending vaccine. One such shipment comprising 68,000 doses was sent to Niger via the World Health Organisation. There, it appears to have been exchanged for counterfeits. Later, tests by the manufacturer confirmed that the substitute "vaccine" had no active ingredient. Three-thousand deaths are thought to have resulted. It is no coincidence that the two most successful economies in the world, the US and Japan, adopt a zero tolerance approach to the theft of intellectual property.
I welcome the consultation exercise that is now under way and hope that the Minister views today's debate as part of that exercise. I urge Ministers to bear in mind the strength of feeling on this issue throughout the creative industries and to respond accordingly. The Bill that I present to your Lordships today is the product of extensive consultation and work within the industry. It seeks to bring coherence and consistency to existing laws, some of which date back to the 18th century and are founded only on common law. It also seeks to give the police, customs and trading standards officers the weapons that they require to take on criminal gangs who are based firmly in the 21st century.
1888
Part I of the Bill covers sales, such as car boot sales and markets, and seeks to bring a greater sense of responsibility to those who profit directly from the sale of counterfeit goods on their land. Clause 1 imposes civil and criminal liabilities on landowners and local authorities who knowingly—I stress that word—allow the sale of counterfeit or pirated goods on their land, for example from market stalls or car boot sales. The organisers of such sales would also face liability.
Clause 2 seeks to impose the same liability for offences related to the unauthorised use of trade marks and amends the Trade Marks Act 1994. Your Lordships may believe that the measure is too draconian. However, the clause is not aimed at the local Women's Institute car boot sale or the impoverished farmer who holds a small sale on his land to gain a little more income. Surely, neither of these examples would he happy to fund organised crime. I have in mind primarily the large-scale, highly organised car boot sales which have become a major outlet for bootleggers and counterfeiters and are often controlled by criminal gangs.
I refer your Lordships to an excellent article by Colin Freeman in the London Evening Standard on Friday 21st January in which he describes a visit to the weekly car boot sale at Hackney Wick dog track in London:
"The Del Boys of this market have plenty of competition. To the left is a stall selling fake Levis and Tommy Hilfiger shirts, to the right is one touting fake perfume and more copied music CDs. Further down a man is selling cross-channel whisky and vodka, and tucked away in a corner a woman touts hardcore porn."
Mr Freeman continues by quoting a local trading standards officer:
"When markets are inspected regularly, word gets around and counterfeiters know there's not much point in going there."
However, when Mr Freeman spoke to the organiser of the Hackney Wick car boot sale he was told that counterfeiting was not his problem and that the police and trading standards officers should take responsibility. Nevertheless, he is happy to make money out of the problem and should, I believe, be held responsible, as should the organisers of other similar car boot sales. It is those cases where the market organiser has been informed of the trade in counterfeit goods but takes no action which provide the focus for these clauses.
Clause 3 seeks to tighten up the currently weak laws on competitive imitation. It is intended to prevent business from dressing up products so as to resemble competing goods, thereby taking unfair advantage of the original's reputation for quality and safety and investment in innovation and marketing. Such legislation is necessary because the imitation is designed deliberately to mislead consumers by stealing the identity and reputation of the rival product. When I was at the Retail Consortium I noted that it was not only the back-street trader who indulged in such copycat retailing. I believe that to steal a brand image is unfair to the initiator who over decades may have made an investment to win customer confidence in a particular product.

1889
At the moment, imitation is governed by passing-off law that dates from the 18th and 19th centuries. It is very vague and has proved ineffective in providing protection to rights owners. The required standard of proof under passing-off law is extreme and gives copycats immense freedom to copy designs in a way that misleads consumers. It is unrealistic to ask industry to fight legal actions and to lose just to prove a point. The lack of legal cases demonstrates the difficulty in bringing actions. I am proposing that courts are in the best position to decide what constitutes imitation. The Bill also gives the wronged party a chance to seek damages in cases where imitation is proven. The present laws, like so many others in this area, present a barrier to innovation by industry and consumers continue to be deceived.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 epitomise much of the Bill in that they modernise the existing legal framework. The law at present is inconsistent and confusing, with anomalies that confound rational explanation.
Clause 4 tidies up the law to enable prosecuting authorities to obtain search warrants where copyright infringement is suspected. At present a loophole in the law means that warrants can be obtained for one category of copyright offence but not another. For example, if the courts have evidence that a person is selling, letting for hire or offering for sale in the course of business an article that infringes copyright the court cannot grant a search warrant. However, the court can grant a search warrant if that same person distributes the same infringing article in the course of the same business. These anomalies cannot be explained, let alone justified, and they constitute a loophole that has long needed closing.
Clause 5 removes restrictions on the rights to seize counterfeit goods. Seizure is currently allowed from temporary but not permanent places of business. The intention is to allow goods to be seized directly from the man in the dodgy shades who trades out of a suitcase up and down the high street. The current legislation recognises that more disruption would be caused in high street shops and so seizure is not allowed in these circumstances.
Unfortunately, the definitions of "permanent" and "temporary" in present legislation are highly ambiguous. At present it can be argued that market stalls, temporary shops, even vehicles are "permanent". Even the man trading out of a suitcase is claiming permanency by standing in the same place each week on the high street. This is clearly not the intention of the current law. The loophole needs closing.
Clause 6 provides the same rights of seizure and forfeiture of products under the copyright legislation as under trade mark legislation. It will bring a level of consistency to the law that is missing at the moment. This section demonstrates the disorganised and anomalous nature of the various pieces of legislation currently on the statute book. Why should the legislation for trade marks be different from legislation for copyright? The only explanation I can offer is that copyright law was dealt with by the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, whereas trade mark law is more
1890
recent. The main piece of legislation is the Trade Marks Act 1994. I am seeking to iron out the anomalies between the two and introduce much needed consistency.
Clause 7 increases the penalties available to the courts for offences committed under this Bill. The maximum sentence for making or dealing with infringing articles, including those offences listed in Part I, would be increased from two to seven years.
The clause goes to the very heart of the Bill by bringing into line the penalties for the theft of intellectual property with those for the theft of physical property. It is the strong contention of the supporters of this Bill that the value of any product is derived as much, if not more, from the ideas which lead to its conception, design and marketing than from the product's physical manufacture. Indeed, this view is borne out by the way in which companies and markets reward inventors, designers and "creatives". Companies know that these are the functions that will give them the edge over their competitors. Surely, therefore, the value of these functions must be reflected by the law in the way that it punishes subversion.
The principle behind the clause is simple: steal the idea behind the product and it is the same as stealing the product itself. The clause ensures that the punishment for intellectual property theft will in future fit the crime. Clause 8 is designed to stop pirates from manufacturing or adapting technology intended for the sole purpose of circumventing copyright protection. It targets pirates and counterfeiters, not consumers who might purchase such goods. Since such devices have only one use and are clearly made with the purpose of breaking copyright protection, I can see no reason why they should not be outlawed.
Clause 9 deals with the granting of a copyright licence and shifts the burden of proof to the accused person to demonstrate that he has a copyright licence or the permission of the copyright owner to copy a piece of work, rather than the current situation where it is left to the owner to prove that the accused did not have copyright permission.
That seems perfectly straightforward to me, but in this Alice in Wonderland world in which we find ourselves, perhaps I may give an example. A case was heard in Swansea one Monday morning in the recent past. A man appeared in court accused of bootlegging a Bob Dylan record. In his defence he claimed that he had the permission of Bob Dylan, the owner of the copyright. The onus was on Mr Dylan to prove that he had not granted a licence to the accused person. Mr Dylan was asked to come over from the USA to Swansea to give evidence. Not surprisingly, he was unable to get to court, at which point the case collapsed.
That is only one example of the spurious legal arguments which counterfeiters are currently able to make. At the core of the problem, however, is the fact that they are able to make them at the public expense, and it is easy for defendants in copyright and trademark cases to obtain legal aid. I know of one local

1891
authority trading standards office which was forced to spend an entire year's legal budget on a single case because the defendants were happy to run up legal aid costs.
The Bill would reverse the onus of proof. Just as a driver of a car has to prove, when asked, that he has a driving licence, so someone making copies of a copyrighted work would have to prove that he had a licence to make those copies.
The remaining sections of the Bill are largely common sense measures designed to bring clarification and consistency to existing legislation. The Bill also includes protection for whistleblowers who inform rights holders about illegal copying but who do not want their names to be revealed.
There is a section which introduces corporate responsibility to copyright and trademark infringement. Directors who "consent or connive" with their companies to break copyright law are already personally liable for the infringement. This clause requires them actively to ensure that their companies do not infringe copyright by making them personally responsible if their negligence or neglect leads directly to the infringement of copyright by their businesses.
Finally, there is a new statutory duty on trading standards authorities to enforce the protection of copyright.
I view the Bill as an important weapon in the fight against organised crime and the protection of intellectual property. Many of its provisions close loopholes or remove inconsistencies or anomalies in existing legislation which are expertly exploited by counterfeiters and bootleggers.
If we wish to defend the industrial and artistic creativity that has brought wealth and success to our country, our courts and law enforcement agencies must be given the legal tools for the job. I welcome the Government's moves in this area, but progress is sluggish and the need for legislation is urgent.
The Government have asked for response to their consultative document by 3rd April, which is a welcome sign of urgency. The Bill is brought before the House today and I am pleased that noble Lords who are to speak have experience of the issues. I am only a front man for an organisation which, as your Lordships can gather from my remarks, has put a great deal of work into the preparation of the Bill. It has made its expertise available to the department and to the Minister.
I hope that the Bill is a spur to action and a pointer to the Government on what kind of legislation could meet the needs of the creative industries and consumers alike. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McNally.)
4.39 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am sure that we all wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on bringing this Bill before the House. He has embarked upon the hard road of getting a Private Member's Bill onto the statute book. In particular, he has the problem of getting it through another place if it is not successful in the ballot. However, he may always fall back on the subsidiary aim of persuading Ministers that the substance of the Bill is sufficiently important and right for the need, eventually, for government legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, set out the objectives of the Bill, and they are extremely clear. I believe that it should be supported by all right-thinking people. He pointed out that there is already much legislation on the statute book and mentioned the 1988 and 1994 Acts. However, those Acts are not working as they should. They are not effective in dealing with the huge flood of counterfeit goods which afflict this country at the moment. They are not effective in covering breach of copyright and trade marks, as they should. Above all, they are not effective in providing sufficient penalties and procedures to catch and deter the villains who engage in this trade.
One of the earliest lessons that I learnt as a law student (if I am allowed to quote it) was the Latin maxim Ubi remedium, ibi jus—"where there is a remedy that is where the law is"; or it could be interpreted loosely as saying that there is no use having a law against something unless the law is both enforceable and enforced. Manifestly, that is not the case with the matters with which we are dealing this evening.
I, too, read the fascinating article in the Evening Standard of 21st January. It was headed, "The bootleggers' enterprise zone". I pass Hackney Wick fairly frequently on my way in and out of London, but I have never been there on a Sunday because I gather that it might be difficult. However, it appears that the local authority has largely given up. It is reported that:
"Hackney council is well aware of the problems at the market, but councillors decided last year that because of lack of money, efforts should focus on manufacturers … rather than vendors".
It goes on:
"Raids have been carried out … and prosecutions brought, but the cost of such operations is large and the penalties too lenient to provide much deterrent. Smaller offenders invariably escape with a fine, while more serious players tend to count their sentences in months rather than years".
As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, part of the purpose of the Bill is to provide significantly heavier penalties, to shift the burden of proof on questions of copyright and licences, and to give new powers to trading standards officers. We must all be aware of just how disheartening it is to be a trading standards officer

1893
and to enforce a law that has such flaws in it. There are to be new powers of forfeiture and, above all, new provisions to extend the law to catch the organisers and the landowners if they,
"knew or had reason to believe that",
sales would infringe copyright, etc. All that appears to be admirable and worthy of support.
I devote the rest of my remarks to Clause 3 regarding copycat sales. My experience of this matter comes purely from being an ordinary employee of a company many years ago. I used to work for the Distillers company, which had the most marvellous Aladdin's cave of lookalike products collected from all over the world. There was a bottle on the shelf that looked like a bottle of White Horse whisky. It was not until one got quite close to it that one realised that it was not a horse but an elephant. It was called "White Elephant" whisky. It was asked, "What is wrong with that? It's not a white horse at all". However, it was meant to look like it. No doubt some people on the other side of a bar, far enough away and perhaps with poor eyesight, would believe that that was what they were getting. There was another bottle bearing a large "Scotland", so that it looked as though it was made in Scotland. It was not until one got very close that one saw from the tiny print that it was "Label printed in SCOTLAND". There were hundreds and hundreds of examples. I find this fascinating.
That company devoted much effort to catching the look-alikes, the copycat sales and the breaches of copyright. It is right for the British Brands Group to describe such activity as commercial piracy, because that is what it is. It is a thousand miles removed from Hackney Wick, from the shady characters wielding suitcases or at car boot sales. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, some of the most respected firms in the country are not averse to putting look-alikes on the retailer's shelves if they think they can get away with it.
The British Brands Group has spelt out the case for change, and I should like to read a sentence or two from its argument:
"Look-alikes are products which establish their credibility and achieve sales by deliberately mimicking the packaging of successful brands. This confuses consumers over the nature and source of the product…
Look-alikes are predominantly produced by retailers, but are also produced by foreign and domestic manufacturers"—
there are a couple of pictures showing what the group means—
"The courts currently have inadequate means of tackling the problem, and a law of unfair competition is badly needed".
This is real. Shoppers are misled. In 1997 National Opinion Polls carried out a survey and found that 17 per cent of shoppers had bought a look-alike in error during the previous six months. That means that nearly one in five had been misled by the appearance of a product on the shelf.
As the noble Lord said, it is not only a matter of deceiving shoppers; it acts as a severe disincentive to business. A big investment is needed to build up confidence in a brand name to convince the market that one's products with that brand have consistency,
1894
quality and value on which the consumer can rely. It often costs millions of pounds. The most famous brand names are built up over decades or even over centuries.
Of course, if a company with a look-alike tried to use the brand name it could be caught at once, because that is clearly a breach of copyright or trade mark, which is an offence. I return to the word "mimic". The ill arises when such a company produces a package or product that mimics the well-known brand image. I shall not go into it, because the noble Lord dealt with it, but the matter was originally dealt with under common law, through the passing off provisions, as part of the tort of passing off. But that is extremely difficult to establish. If one is dealing with relatively cheap products, it is simply not worth the time, effort and cost.
What are we to do? The matter is covered by international conventions. This country is under an obligation to legislate to deal with this kind of unfair competition. It comes notably under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property. That convention goes right back to 1867, but the critical article is 10 bis, inserted by the Stockholm Convention of 14th July 1967.I was able, with the help of the Library and the Internet, to get hold of a copy of that article, which reads:
"The countries of the Union are bound to assure to nationals of such countries effective protection against unfair competition… The following in particular shall be prohibited: 1. all acts of such a nature as to create confusion by any means whatever with the establishment, the goods, or the industrial or commercial activities, of a competitor".
That is a perfect description of a look-alike—creating confusion. That article on unfair competition underpins later treaties, notably the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, signed in Marrakesh on 15th April 1994. That article refers back to Article 10 bis at several points.
What do we find out about that obligation on member countries to implement Article 10 bis of the Stockholm Convention? It has been implemented in a great many other countries but it has not been implemented here. One is entitled to ask why that is so. One might say that it is truly astonishing because it is a law which is supposed to apply to us and is an obligation on us and yet that is not actually what happens.
I shall no doubt be asked, "Well, you had 17 or 18 years in government. Why did your party not do something about it?" I accept that. Something should have been done. But the present Government cannot escape like that. I have here—and I have given the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, notice of this point—their own White Paper on international development entitled Eliminating World Poverty, which was launched with a justifiable amount of "hoop-la" back in the first six months of their time in office. It contains this provision:
"We will work with multilateral institutions, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), WTO and UNCTAD, to help developing countries restructure their

1895
intellectual property rights systems, and implement the WTO Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement",
which I waved just a few moments ago,
"in order to support domestic investment and attract foreign investment".
So what do the Government say? I believe that we are owed an explanation. Paragraph 3.34 states:
"We are committed to rules on intellectual property rights which will facilitate the transfer of technology, and provide incentives for investment".
Does that really mean that it applies only to other people and not to us; or is it a case of doing one thing and saying another, something with which we have become, regrettably, all too familiar? So it is left to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, a Private Member, to do the job for them and Clause 3 of his Bill does just that.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will give us a long list of reasons why the Government will not smile on this Bill and help it on its way. But in the course of his response I hope that he will be able to give the House a clear statement that the Government recognise their obligation not merely to help developing countries but to legislate in this country under Article 10 bis to outlaw look-alikes and that they will legislate as soon as they can.
I venture to suggest to the Front Bench opposite that that may prove to be extremely popular. I suspect that Ministers would like that popularity at the present time. In the meantime, I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, welcome the general aims of this Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Towards the end of his contribution, he said that he was a front man for a number of organisations and that there had been consultation on the Bill. I hope that the consultation has included consumers and not just the business world. I see that he is nodding in agreement. I am pleased about that. This is a two-pronged approach.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when the alliance approached me after I had expressed an interest, I asked it to talk to the Consumers' Association and other related bodies because, just as I indicated that the manufacturers have some concerns, I know that consumers also have some concerns. I am extremely anxious that all interested groups should talk to each other in order that we achieve the best possible legislation.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. To consider one side of the problem without taking into account the other side, that of the consumer, would certainly diminish the intentions of the Bill.
I thank him also for allowing me to go a little way down memory lane—more years than I care to share with noble Lords today. I spoke on this very issue as
1896
a young delegate to the Trades Union Congress. The issues, despite the adoption of new technology such as videos and CDs, are basically still the same. The impact of the problem is the same. Working in printing and packaging, we kept coming up against the problem of mimic packaging. It does not have to be even slightly different. The eye would not be able to detect the difference in normal use. We are talking about packaging on goods which the consumer believes are branded products. As we know, today the brand is everything in so many of the products that the consumer purchases. Therefore, such counterfeiting is theft, not only of intellectual property, but of jobs as well as of the business of companies.
I should be surprised if there is not one of us in the Chamber who has not at some point in his life bought something which he believed was the genuine product, but, when he really looked, found it was not. That is the consumer unwittingly buying something he believes is genuine, but which is not. The seller of the product is getting away. If one goes back to take up the issue, he has probably moved on. Therefore, I welcome the general aims of the Bill.
I welcome especially the shift in the burden of proof on licensing from the person who holds the original licence to the person who claims to have the licence and permission to use it. Clearly, for a member of the public, or indeed, the prosecuting authorities, it is nigh impossible to track down such people and deal with them in a local court. I welcome also the increased powers for trading standards officers. We all recognise the good work that trading standards officers, who are too often short of resources, do on the ground in local communities in tracking down such offences. The increase in their powers and the back-up penalties which courts may invoke on cases which they take to them are extremely welcome.
The intention in the Bill to give protection to whistleblowers is also extremely welcome. That borders on a quite nasty side to some of the places where such goods are sold, such as Hackney market. We have all read the article on it in the Evening Standard. However, while I recognise that the noble Lord acknowledged—I believe that he used the word "draconian"—that the powers may be interpreted as draconian, I am not sure about the new civil and criminal legal liabilities on landowners and local authorities which knowingly allow the sale of counterfeit and pirated goods on their land. I have reservations about the practicality of those provisions. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned the Women's Institute and the case of the local landowner who allows his land to be used for a car boot sale one Sunday morning. I have no problem with the intention, but I should want to consider the practicalities.
We have probably all read the article in the Evening Standard on 21st January. I live not far from the area in question. It sounds like a hive of criminal activity and yet innocent consumers are probably going there. For my part, I should be hard pushed to buy anything from a car boot sale except, perhaps, a second hand book. But consumers go there quite innocently. It is

1897
the local authority's responsibility to deal with such a situation, although I accept that local authorities are under great pressure.
I greatly welcome the Bill. It may not reach its ultimate conclusion, but I sincerely hope that the Government, if they do not pick up the Bill, will adopt its intention and many of its provisions which would assist consumer protection considerably. Those provisions would assist also the avoidance of straightforward theft of intellectual property and, I suggest on occasion, the theft of real jobs in this country.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am delighted to follow and support the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his eloquent moving of the Bill. Perhaps I may say that flattery will get him everywhere. I am grateful for the offer of some branded, or perhaps not, liquor. However, as my journey will terminate on four wheels, perhaps tonight I may desist. I was also fascinated that the noble Lord desisted from referring to M Talleyrand until the clearing of the Chamber in the previous debate in which he took part. No doubt if he had mentioned him in another context, there could have been fun and games.
In my short contribution in support of the Bill, I have no particular interests to declare, apart perhaps from shares in companies that might be involved in products such as breakfast foods, pills or medicaments. Those particular forms of commerce have been eloquently mentioned by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I was fascinated by his story of the "white whisky". His tale of distinguishing between an elephant and a horse might be relevant to drinkers of that brand. They are particularly relevant to some sportsmen who come north of the Border to my neck of the woods and have to be told, "No, no, that is a cow. You are supposed to be shooting deer today". We have a particular brand, especially when we get some of the more excitable sportsmen. I hope that that particular aspect will not be covered by the Bill.
On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Jenkin mentioned Clause 3. Both he and I, and I suspect other noble Lords, have some knowledge of one of the great industries of the United Kingdom; that is, pharmaceuticals. To that industry, intellectual property and, indeed, very often the protection of brands, is of particular and crucial importance. The Bill would cover many more of what are known as over-the-counter products. However, with those, too, there can be considerable danger for customers when they go into a shop, if they are not careful. There may, for instance, be a slight language difficulty if one is abroad. One may buy a product thinking it to be a particular brand of medicament and it is not. It may be far from that medicament in quality, effectiveness and other measures.
I am curious as regards Clause 9(2) of the Bill, which refers to Section 198 of the 1988 Act. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, or the Minister when he winds up the debate, will be able to reassure me that,
"making, dealing with or using"
1898
particular articles would cover one aspect of purchases that I have made. I am afraid I am rather old-fashioned and collect cassettes, rather than CDs. I find them in reputable stores, labelled under so-called "collections" of melodies, songs or performances of various artists. Such items are for sale and bought in reputable stores. I hope that such collections meet the relevant measures relating to intellectual property and are not caught under the terms of theft, used so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. I would think that Section 198 of the 1988 Act would cover those products. However, possibly Clause 9(2) of the Bill would refine that a little.
I return to Clause 3. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the Minister will be able to reassure me that both the 1988 and 1994 Acts are being refined little by little to catch what has been referred to by every speaker in the debate as "passing-off". I believe it was my noble friend Lord Jenkin who pointed out that "passing-off" in English law is a common law offence. The noble Lord has law training; I have very little. It is often difficult and time-consuming to obtain a proper and effective judgment in a dispute over the "passing-off- of a particular brand of goods. I have received the same briefing material as my noble friend Lord Jenkin which cites a well-known case concerning a biscuit. The biscuit and its original counterpart looked roughly the same; indeed, they were rather closer than the horse and the elephant. There was justifiable confusion.
The noble Baroness referred to consumers. I, too, am one because I am probably among a minority of noble Lords who do the normal weekly shopping. When I am let loose in a supermarket there can occasionally be problems. If a special promotion is taking place, usually presented by an attractive young lady or a persuasive young man, I will pay close attention. On the other hand, I am not a Scot for nothing. I will certainly have a look at the promotion and accept the free tasting or something of that ilk. But I tend to return to the brand of product that I know. Of course, many of the special promotions one encounters in retail outlets are set up to promote the "own brand" of that retailer, even though one may well find that the branded goods are on special offer as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to clarity of labelling. There is a limit to how closely one can examine the detail on every label—which is rather reminiscent of certain proceedings in your Lordships' House. One also has to consider those like myself with visual challenges. I am a little short-sighted. However, I am quite able to see exactly what is displayed on the shelf. But passing off a brand name with slightly altered spelling can often pose a problem. I have not been affected by this to any great degree, but my noble friend said that 17 per cent of consumers had within the past six months been so deceived.
I conclude by looking not at words and figures but at the issue of symbols and brand design. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and I have something in common. Noble Lords may be surprised to learn that

1899
both of us drive motor cars that were originally constructed in the great German city of Stuttgart. As I recall, her motor car symbol is that of a three-pointed star with a circle around it, while mine has the badge of the Dukes of Württemberg. There is no doubt that right around the world, from the North Pole to the South Pole, the symbol of the three-pointed star with a circle around it is known and indicates a particular brand of goods; usually, but not exclusively, motor cars.
However, those noble Lords visiting the Alps or watching television at this time of year will on occasion see tough and wizened athletes hurtling most impressively down the slopes using a certain brand of skis. The tips of those skis also display a three-pointed star, but without the circle. It is an Austrian brand. As far as I am aware, no clash or difficulty has arisen over that symbol and there have been no disputes in the courts. I believe that the ski manufacturers have been using that symbol for the past 10 to 15 years. However, I am aware of that symbol and it brought home to me a difficult problem encountered by the manufacturers of popular branded sportswear. The symbol on a branded article of sportswear apparel is of particular importance for its manufacturers, but copies abound. I hope that in that area the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be of assistance to British and other manufacturers. The counterfeiting of sports goods is probably one of the most widespread misdemeanours throughout the world.
Counterfeiting applies not only to luxury goods. I was interested to hear about T-shirts of a specific Italian brand. When the price of them was quoted to me I was tempted to ask whether it was in lira or roubles. I was advised sternly, "No, no". My Scottish blood came straight in to play and for me one T-shirt is as good as another, especially in the slanting rain of Angus. I shall therefore buy what I can see. But if other consumers want branded articles, they should be reassured that they represent the quality which they are entitled to expect.
With that in mind, perhaps I can refer back 23 years to the Patents Bill. It was an enormous Bill that completely re-wrote the law on patents. It was introduced by a Labour government. In the same year there was the Unfair Contract Terms Bill, which I believe also turned into an Act. That too had massive consequences for industry, trade and commerce. I hope that in this year 2000, the year of the millennium, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will have the success it deserves in helping to stamp out what the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, called plain "theft"; it is also greed. I wish the Bill every success.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the Copyright and Trade Marks Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It is a subject that should be of concern to all of us, whatever our political persuasion.
1900
The Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy, a trade association whose recent formation should be welcomed, brings together for the first time all the major organisations concerned with defending intellectual property rights. It says that the misappropriation of intellectual property cost UK businesses almost £6.5 billion in 1999 and the Treasury almost £1 billion in tax revenues. To quote its spokesman, Chris Matheson:
"Why should a business pay millions of pounds to research and develop and market a new product only to find that the expected profits are wiped out by counterfeiters, pirates or the producers of lookalike goods".
In addition, there are the proven links between counterfeiting, piracy and drug smuggling, money laundering, pornography and terrorism.
The Bill has four main aims. First, it seeks to close the legal loopholes in existing copyright legislation. Secondly, it tackles look-alike and copy-cat packaging. As mentioned by other speakers, that area was brought to my attention by the trade association, the British Brands Group, which tells me that such measures are already in existence in every mainland European country and countries with common law jurisdiction such as Australia and New Zealand. Such measures are long overdue in the UK.
Thirdly, the Bill introduces legislation making owners of markets or the land on which car boot sales are held responsible for goods sold at such events. Fourthly, it makes increased penalties available to the courts for offences committed, treating intellectual theft as seriously as other forms of theft. Fifthly, it provides for a shift in the burden of proof to the accused person who claims to possess a copyright licence to show that he or she indeed has a copyright licence, or approval of the owner, rather than the current situation where it is left to the owner to prove that the accused did not have permission to make or sell copies.
Sixthly, restrictions are placed on the manufacture or importation of technology intended solely for the circumvention of electronic copyright protection. Seventhly, new duties are placed on trading standards officers to enforce copyright. Finally, greater protection is given to whistleblowers who inform rights holders about illegal copying but who do not wish their names to be revealed to those people acting illegally.
I attended a most helpful briefing of the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy on the Bill earlier in the week. I too have learned about the problems of counterfeit goods being sold at car boot sales such as at Hackney Wick dog track where, as others have said, fake designer shirts, CDs, whisky, vodka, cigarettes and hard core pornography are all apparently being sold. According to the Evening Standard of 21st January, it appears that customers can buy almost anything illicit and no vendor seems the slightest bit concerned about being caught.

1901
Action must be taken. Because of lack of money Hackney council will prosecute only the manufacturers of such goods, not the sellers. The director of regulatory services there admitted in the article that he did not have the resources to tackle the problem of the sale of counterfeit goods. This Bill will, I hope, change the situation.
First, Clause 1, I believe, needs careful attention. The extra onus put on the landowner or the person who holds the sale is a concern to us. We would not wish a genuine one-off car boot sale to be overburdened by bureaucracy; on the other hand we wish to tighten up regular sales such as that at Hackney Wick. I hope that the example of a raid on a Nottingham car boot sale last week will be followed by other authorities. I am assured by the alliance that the offence will be committed only by a person who knowingly allows counterfeit goods to be sold. But perhaps there should be a system of warnings before the offence is deemed to be committed.
Secondly, as I said at last week's alliance presentation, I believe that there should be a tightening up of the law on car boot sales in addition to what is currently in the Bill. Councils should be notified of the location, stallholders and the times of sales and should have to grant a licence before allowing them to go ahead. This would, I hope, have the advantage of scaring off some of the more dubious operators of market stalls altogether while still allowing bona fide ones to operate.
Thirdly, as a possible addition to the Bill, I am not sure that the Internet is adequately covered. This is obviously an international issue. I await the EC Green Paper on counterfeiting and piracy in the single market with interest and also the draft copyright and e-commerce directives which will be important in providing an appropriate legal framework in Europe. However, international action is also needed, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Jenkin in connection with the Stockholm and Marrakech conventions.
I believe that this Private Member's Bill is necessary. The Government, although promising action, have been slow to put it into practice. For instance, while Kim Howells, the consumer affairs Minister, told a conference on copyright and piracy in November that he expected to identify areas where legislation could help clamp down on a problem that damaged business and consumers and a consultation paper has been produced by the Patent Office, no firm plans for government legislation have, or look likely, to emerge. Therefore I support the decision of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to press ahead with this Private Member's Bill.
Can the Minister say what action the Government propose to take and what is the timetable after the deadline for comment on the consultation paper has expired on 3rd April? Does he support the arguments made in this speech, many of which have been included in the Bill? Do the Government have plans to introduce legislation themselves, and when? Could
1902
tougher sentencing for counterfeiters he added to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Bill? I await the Minister's response with interest.
5.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that my response would be a "dead bat". I have searched my speech and I cannot find any reference to bald, mouse-like, nocturnal mammals of the genus Chiroptera, so I do not know what he is talking about.
I have listened to the debate about the noble Lord's Bill with interest. Counterfeiting and piracy are, of course, seen by the Government as very serious issues requiring effective solutions to reduce the incidence of this criminal activity. The Government believe that the levels of these crimes are lower than in many other countries in the world, but we are not complacent and we accept that further improvements are needed, even in the United Kingdom.
Thanks to the alliance which is behind this Bill, I have had the opportunity to read its briefing and to read the Evening Standard article, although, unfortunately, I was on duty and unable to attend its meeting earlier this week. I should like to elaborate on some of the initiatives that the Government are currently undertaking that have direct relevance to the topic that the noble Lord has highlighted with this Bill.
Possible improvements to the criminal provisions in intellectual property law are currently the subject of a consultation paper that was issued last month, which has been referred to in the debate. The paper recognises the desirability of more harmonisation and rationalisation between the different areas of intellectual property law—trade marks on the one hand, copyright and related laws on the other hand. Areas explored in the paper are the level of penalties for criminal offences, to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, referred, police powers of search and seizure and the provisions allowing forfeiture of infringing goods.
These are all areas where the Government feel that changes could be justified, although of course final decisions will not be taken until after the end of the consultation period on 3rd April. The timetable for the consideration of the consultation is not yet established. Indeed, it could not be until we have seen the volume and quality of the responses. I can confirm that the contributions to this debate will be valued as part of the response to the consultation process.
Another initiative is the setting up of a new forum, the counterfeiting and piracy forum. This forum brings together interests from a number of areas to sit with government representatives to consider how to deliver more effective enforcement against intellectual property crime and perhaps eventually extend any successful outcomes beyond the UK. Industry—and I believe the alliance—will be represented on this forum, as will he public sector enforcers, prosecutors, retailers, consumers, Internet service providers and so on. This wide cross-section of interests is being brought together not only to improve actual

1903
enforcement against counterfeiters and pirates by greater co-operation and co-ordination wherever possible but also more indirectly by looking at how consumers can perhaps be persuaded not to buy fake goods in the first place.
The consumer angle is one that has already received publicity by government sponsorship of a seminar last November, which again has been referred to, and participation in road shows in December to highlight both the short and long-term issues for consumers where they purchase fake goods. More road shows are planned in May.
Consumers can be directly and immediately affected by the deceptive practices of those who sell fakes where such goods are of poor quality or do not work or, more seriously, where they are dangerous. Counterfeiters may be involved in organised crime, which consumers purchasing their goods appear unwittingly to support. Other issues for us all are the reduction in employment opportunities in legitimate businesses which suffer losses, less investment in future creativity and the development of new products and losses to the Exchequer.
While improving consumer education about intellectual property crime will be taken forward in the forum, there are of course wider education and awareness issues that will be highlighted in the report of the Intellectual Property Group, a sub-group of the Government's Creative Industries Task Force, that will he published later this month.
There is also much happening at the international level relevant to intellectual property crime, and the Government are generally supportive of these activities. We are all awaiting the follow-up to the European Commission's Green Paper on counterfeiting and piracy in the single market and we are hoping to support co-operative work in the G8 forum, among other things.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I should say that we are not waiting for European legislation to do things in the United Kingdom, but there are certain aspects of the Bill that are linked to European Union legislation, for example, offences relating to circumvention devices, which should sensibly await implementation of the legislation.
Before I leave the international dimension, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. We believe that the law on intellectual property in the United Kingdom is compatible with all the international conventions to which we are signatories. This includes the TRIPS agreement, the agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, which itself incorporates Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention. The United Kingdom law has been scrutinised by that council and was not found to be deficient. Of course we also encourage and expect developing countries to meet their obligations under
1904
TRIPS in respect of measures to deal with counterfeiting and protection against unfair competition, in addition to other areas.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I am most grateful to him. It has been represented to me by the British Council, as far as I can see very convincingly, that there is a lacuna in the British law in that laws have been passed, notably on the Continent and, as has been mentioned, in Australia and New Zealand, to outlaw unfair competition in a way that catches the look-alikes, and there is no similar law in this country. That point was made, and I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister can respond to that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since I have given the view of the TRIPS council itself that our law is compatible and does implement these agreements, it would perhaps be better if the noble Lord or his advisers wrote to me so that we can put the forces up against each other and try to resolve the differences, rather than seek to resolve them in this Chamber.
To return to the Bill, I welcome the opportunity to indicate Government sympathy with the overriding objective of reducing levels of counterfeiting and piracy. Indeed, some of the provisions in the Bill are broadly similar to those on which we are currently consulting. But I have to say that there are other parts of the Bill which give rise to serious reservations. For example, it is not acceptable, except in exceptional circumstances, to make it easier to obtain a conviction for a criminal offence by reversing the burden of proof or to make certain activities less likely to occur by criminalising the activities of people such as those who arrange car boot sales but who are not directly involved in dealing with illegal material. I am not unsympathetic to what has been said about car boot sales—I recognise that this is a problem—but I hope that work in the new counterfeiting and piracy forum can help to find solutions, in addition to legislative ones, in the areas covered in the Government's consultation paper. However, as the Bill stands, such measures could seriously affect people's legitimate interests and have human rights implications.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, also raised the issue of look-alike packaging, very vividly, if I may say so. The Government are not convinced that a change in the law to extend brand owners' rights, as against those who sell products in look-alike packaging, is needed. The subject was studied carefully by a committee in the other place which concluded that brand owners have probably not exhausted the possibilities to act using passing-off law. So the law is not clearly deficient and the Government broadly support these conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to the 1988 Act. My understanding is that this Bill does not alter what would be within the scope of the criminal liability provisions in Section 198 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It merely alters the presumptions when such an offence is to be prosecuted. But perhaps it is more appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to answer that question.

1905
The best approach to delivering our shared objective of reducing levels of property crime would be for all interested parties to work with the Government in the areas I have indicated. I know that Dr Kim Howells, the Minister responsible for intellectual property, has already invited the industry body sponsoring the Bill—the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy—together with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to meet him to discuss in more detail the issues raised in the Bill. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government's commitment to act where possible to reduce levels of intellectual property crime and work with the industry and others to achieve that is undoubted.
We do not express views as a Government on Private Members' Bills, but I hope that my remarks have been helpful.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the absence of a dead bat from the Minister's speech convinces me that I am not flogging a dead horse. Towards the end of my earlier speech I used the term "front man". Given the angst in this House and another place about lobbying, perhaps I should explain that I was active in the proceedings on the Competition Bill and, because I was active, the alliance thought that I was a likely lad to approach with this matter. We get into all kinds of concerns about lobbying, but I think it is a perfectly legitimate exercise in lobbying when at a pre-legislative stage an industry or alliance involves a parliamentarian and airs its issues and grievances. This has been an entirely healthy use of the parliamentary process.
As the Minister indicated in his response, and as all involved recognise, a good deal is going on at the moment. Dr Kim Howells is proving to be an active, interested and involved Minister in this area. I therefore have a dilemma. This is a very real problem. I am told that there are 7,000 car boot sales in this country on any weekend in the summer. That is a big issue. On another point, I was given an example of a 16 year-old who is able to run off 30,000 copies of a CD on equipment in his bedroom. The technology is moving to make it very simple to steal copyright. Perhaps I may say, in dealing with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that the Bill is not aimed at the individual consumer who wants to put together a compilation. What the individual does for personal use is one matter; what people do on a large scale for commercial gain is another.
The problem I face is whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, urged me, to take the Bill further so that we can get into the nitty-gritty of Committee, or whether I should, as it were, put the Government on test. If a lot of the good things that are happening—the Minister referred to them in his response—do not provide real action by the next Queen's Speech and the next Session of Parliament, I reserve the right to
1906
introduce a mark 2 Bill in the next Session of Parliament. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Second Reading.
Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.

Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2000 Energy from Waste Plants (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000 Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000 Gas Industry (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000 Railways (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000 Water Undertakers (Rateable Values)(England) Order 2000 Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000
5.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 29th February and 2nd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: These orders will set the rateable values for companies whose rateable values are prescribed by the Secretary of State. Those companies are the electricity industry, including large energy from waste plants; the water supply industry; BG Transco, which runs the gas pipeline network; Railtrack and London Underground; and large docks and harbours. The chargeable amounts amendment regulations make some technical amendments to the transitional relief scheme for ratepayers generally.
Most properties have their rateable values assessed independently by the Valuation Office Agency. However, since the 1950s, valuation of the former public utilities has proved very difficult, so their rateable values have been prescribed by the Secretary of State. In recent years, following privatisation, conventional rating valuations of these industries have again become possible and our intention is that they should be moved to conventional assessment at the revaluation after this one. For the current revaluation, we are proposing to prescribe values so far as possible assessed by conventional means.
The orders either prescribe actual rateable values or set formulae for reaching rateable values. Railtrack, London Underground, the water supply companies, BG Transco, National Grid and the regional electricity companies all appear on the central rating list held by the Secretary of State. For those companies, the orders set the actual rateable value for 2000–01 and, in most cases, an adjustment factor for future years. Power stations, large energy from waste plants and docks and harbours all appear on local rating lists held by local authorities. For those properties, the orders contain formulae which will calculate the rateable value in each case.
Both actual rateable values and formulae are the result of detailed discussions with the companies or their representatives. Those discussions have been running since last spring and have resulted in the agreement of some of the rateable values before us today. All the companies have been given several opportunities to comment on the valuations. In many cases their points have been accepted and the rateable values have been reduced accordingly. We have based the values on full rating valuations from the Valuation Office Agency so they will also be comparable to rateable values in the normal rating world. We believe the orders are fair in their preparation and fair in their result.
The orders contain over £2 billion of rateable value. Some companies will see increases and others will see reductions, but because the rating multiplier will fall to 41.6 pence in the pound for 2000–01, only ratepayers with an increase in rateable value over 17.5 per cent will see an increase in their bill. Furthermore, the transitional relief scheme will limit increases and reductions in bills. Next year the maximum increases for these companies is 12½ per cent and the maximum reduction is 2½ per cent before allowing for inflation.
The transitional relief scheme has been widely welcomed by business, as my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton noted in the debate on 9th December on the regulations giving effect to the scheme. Amendments are now required to those regulations to bring them into line with subsequent developments. Those amendments are contained in the Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2000 which are before us today, and which I have moved.
The most important provision is to be found in Regulation 8. It brings the transitional relief scheme into line with changes to the rules on the backdating of successful appeals by ratepayers against their rateable values. We announced these changes on 2nd February following extensive consultation with interested bodies.
Under the new rules, a successful appeal against a new rateable value will have effect from 1st April 2000 only if the appeal is made by 30th September. Where an appeal is made after 30th September 2000 and before 31st March 2001, the alteration to the value in the rating list will not be backdated before 1st October 2000. Appeals made in subsequent financial years will
1908
not be backdated beyond the start of that year. The new limits on the backdating of successful appeals form part of a wider package of administrative measures to improve the appeals system. This includes publication of a programme for considering appeals. The changes on effective dates are intended to encourage appeals to be made early, which in turn will make it easier to devise a comprehensive programme for considering appeals. Details of these changes to the appeals system are covered in a leaflet that we have asked local authorities to send to all ratepayers with their new rates bills.
Regulation 8 provides that where a change in rateable value is backdated to 1st October 2000 or later any adjustment to the transitional relief applying to the rate bill will have effect from the same date. This will ensure that a ratepayer affected by the transitional scheme is in the same position as one who is not. Both will secure any benefits of a reduction in their rateable value from the date of the alteration of the rating list, whether it is 1st April 2000 or later. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 29th February and 2nd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question relating to the Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values)(England) Order 2000. On page 3, why is it that the rateable value for nuclear energy not produced by a Magnox reactor is more than twice that for nuclear energy which is?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figure per megawatt is a reduction in the present assessment. Rating hypothesis makes different assumptions as to what is provided by a landlord and hence the rent that a tenant will be prepared to pay. AGRs and PWRs are some of the most efficient generators. The amount of electricity generated is therefore greater than some of their competitors and the income that they can generate is greater. This is reflected in a higher rental value that the tenant would be prepared to pay. As to Magnox power plants, the running costs are higher than for the modern nuclear reactors. The life of Magnox power plants is limited and any prospective tenant will be responsible for considerable decommissioning costs. With the modern plants, decommissioning is quite a long way off and the operators can make contingencies for this.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Work-focused Interviews) Regulations 2000
5.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Social Security (Work-focused Interviews) Regulations and the Contracting Out (Functions relating to Social Security) Order underpin the next stage of the Government's agenda for reform of the welfare state. They are key enablers of our radical and innovative modernisation strategy which is based upon the principle that work is the best form of welfare. Our programme of reform is already a proven success. The New Deal and other key initiatives such as WFTC and the national minimum wage have a real effect on people's lives. We have already helped over 260,000 people to find work.
But this is just a start. We want to build upon the success of New Deal so that all benefit claimants are given the opportunity to fulfil their potential. That is why we are introducing a single gateway into the benefit system. We shall bring together the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency and local authorities to improve customer service, giving claimants one point of contact for all their benefit needs: the ONE service. That service will allow every claimant of working age to realise his aspirations by providing the personalised support and advice that he needs to move towards independence.
No doubt your Lordships will have heard yesterday's announcement by the Prime Minister of the establishment of a new agency to draw together the Employment Service and the BA. The new organisation will deliver a single, integrated service to people of working age. It will provide the right framework for ONE and our other welfare-to-work initiatives to develop and grow. ONE is currently being piloted in 12 parts of the country. Until now the pilots have operated on an entirely voluntary basis. The prime effect of the regulations before us is to require claimants of working age who live in these pilot areas and make new claims to benefits to take part in work-focused interviews. Interviews will normally take place as part of the claims process, although the requirement may be waived or deferred if appropriate. Claimants may also be required to take part in repeat interviews, triggered by prescribed events.
I must emphasise that these regulations do no more than make participation at interviews in these pilot areas mandatory. They will not require lone parents or disabled people to take a job or undergo training. Any steps they take beyond attendance at interview are entirely voluntary. The choice remains but we will ensure that it is an informed choice.
I know that your Lordships have had some opportunity to study these regulations but it might be helpful none the less if I point out a few of the key provisions.
Regulation 4 provides that someone of working age who lives in a pilot area and who wishes to claim a specified benefit must take part in a work-focused interview. The benefits to which this provision applies are income support, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, invalid care allowance, widow's and bereavement benefits, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Interviews will be conducted
1910
by personal advisers, who will provide continuity of help and advice for each claimant. Interviews will normally take place in a ONE office but may be conducted elsewhere as appropriate. Claimants under the age of 18 years will be dealt with by the Careers Service who will focus principally on training and educational opportunities.
Noble Lords will recall that during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill concerns were raised that claimants should be given the right to be represented at interview if they so chose. I am pleased to say that we have taken on board this entirely helpful suggestion. Guidance to staff operating the ONE service is unequivocal in laying out a claimant's right to advocacy. All letters sent to confirm appointments state clearly and straightforwardly that the person may be accompanied by a friend, relative or other advocate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was particularly anxious that we ensured that that was available, especially for those who might have a disability or for whom English was not a first language, and so on.
Regulation 5 sets out exemptions. Some of the prescribed benefits—for example, widows' benefits and housing benefit—can be claimed by people who are already in work. In such cases a work-focused interview will be unnecessary and so they are exempt from the provision. Because people claiming or entitled to jobseeker's allowance are already required to undertake work-related activities they, too, are excluded; they are already covered. Finally, people who do not habitually reside in Great Britain are not subject to the provision, for the obvious, practical reasons.
Regulation 6 deals with repeat interviews. It provides that, in order to continue receiving full benefit, claimants may be required to take part in work-focused interviews at specified points during their benefit claim.
For lone parents, other than those claiming incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance, this will be an annual interview. For all other clients, the trigger for an interview will be the receipt of a personal capability assessment—for clients with a disability; the cessation of invalid care allowance; when part-time work ends or starts; when a course of training or education ends; or when the client turns 18.
Regulations 7 and 8 allow for the requirement to take part in an interview to be waived or deferred. A waiver may be applied if an interview would be of no assistance to the claimant or would not be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. It may be deferred where it would not be either appropriate or of assistance at that particular time. Decisions on whether to waive or defer the interview will be taken according to the merits of each individual case. It will be quite exceptional for an interview to be of no value at all so waivers and deferrals will be rare. However, where a claimant is so severely disabled that he could derive no help or support from a work-focused interview a waiver may be applied. That might be, for example, on a letter from the GP, a consultant, or

1911
something similar. Similarly, where a person is distressed following a recent bereavement, has recently given birth or undergone major surgery the interview may be put back to a more appropriate and convenient time. In such cases the claimant will be treated as having complied with the requirement and the claim will proceed in the normal way.
Your Lordships may recall that the issue of waiving the requirement caused some debate during the passage of the Bill. There were particular concerns that the requirement could create problems for people suffering from mental illnesses and amendments were put down to exclude people with disabilities from the provisions. Our view remains that this is something that cannot be legislated for. Disability is a continuum. And the degree of disability may vary over time. Conditions can improve, deteriorate or fluctuate. On a case-by-case basis, although an individual might not be able to work it would be difficult to provide a workable definition. Decisions will be made on an individual case basis only.
However, some genuine concerns here were raised by your Lordships. We have been working hard with bodies representing different client groups in order to minimise the potential for this to become a real problem. We have consulted with organisations such as Scope, MIND, Mencap, Carers National Association and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Many of these bodies have been involved in helping to train ONE advisers and in drawing up the guidance on when to waive or defer interview that will be used by advisers. And we have introduced further safeguards. For example, guidance will make it clear that where a person produces evidence, such as a letter from his doctor, indicating that even participation in an interview might be detrimental to his condition, the requirement can be waived.
I hope that this offers some reassurance. We are, of course, trying to find a middle route between two conflicting principles. On the one hand, we do not want to deny help to anyone who might benefit from it. On the other, we do not want to cause anyone needless anxiety or distress. We hope that we have the balance right, but these are pilot schemes and we shall keep them under close review. If we need to change the arrangements, we can do so.
Regulation 11 defines what "taking part" means. This has been kept as straightforward as possible to ensure that there is little room for doubt as to whether or not the requirement has been satisfied. A claimant must attend at the appointed time and place and answer, when asked, a series of questions related to his past employment history and future employment prospects. That is all that he needs to do to satisfy the requirement. As I said, there is no requirement to seek work or take any other action.
Regulation 12 sets out the consequences of failing to take part in the interview. In a new claim, the client will be treated as not having made that claim to benefit and so there will be no award made. If the initial interview was deferred and benefit put into payment, it would be withdrawn. Where a claimant fails to take part in a
1912
repeat interview, benefit will be reduced by an amount equivalent to 20 per cent of the income support personal allowance for a person over 25, currently just over £10 a week.
However, I want to assure your Lordships that we have built sound safeguards into the way the system will operate. Claimants will be given at least three opportunities to attend an interview before any action is taken. They will be given numerous reminders of the requirement and the consequences of failure to comply with it. Secondly, if we have been unable to make direct contact with the claimant, we will attempt to visit them at home before we withdraw benefit. That is in order to ensure that there are no administrative errors or issues associated with women having left the home because of fears of violence. Moreover, benefit will be reinstated as soon as the person complies. Our aim is to encourage compliance, not to enforce sanctions.
Regulation 14 provides a non-exhaustive list of matters to be taken into account in considering good cause for failure to take part in an interview. The provision is similar to good-cause arrangements elsewhere in the benefits system.
Regulation 15 provides a right of appeal against a decision that a person has failed to take part without good cause. All decisions will be treated as decisions of the Secretary of State and will be heard by the independent appeals service.
I want to move on to the contracting out order. Private and voluntary sector organisations are leading the delivery of the ONE service in four of the 12 pilot areas. This order is designed to enable employees of those organisations to perform certain functions in relation to work-focused interviews.
The order relates only to functions connected with the ONE service: it does not cover any other social security functions such as those related to the determination of claims to benefits. The order allows for specified functions of the Secretary of State and of local authorities to be exercised by those authorised on their behalf. Those who are authorised to exercise the functions and the extent to which they may be exercised will be detailed in contracts with the providers.
The functions that may be contracted out are those relating to work-focused interviews, the revision of decisions related to work-focused interviews and certain functions relating to claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit. This means that the contractor or his employee may decide, for example, whether a work-focused interview should be waived or deferred; that a client has "taken part" in such an interview; or that there was good cause for failure to comply with the requirement. He may also revise such decisions, for example, where fresh information comes to light.
The provisions within these instruments are entirely in accordance with the intentions we outlined during the passage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. They provide the foundation for the ONE service, a service which will help even more people to make the

1913
transition from benefit cheque to pay cheque. I commend both the regulations and the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st March be approved [12th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Baroness Rawlingss: My Lords, we welcome in principle the introduction of work-focused interviews. However, we continue to have a number of concerns, in particular prematurely introducing the compulsory element before we have all had an opportunity to see with the pilot scheme whether the system is effective. The Minister will recall that during the passage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill my noble friend Lady Buscombe suggested both in Committee and at Third Reading that the term "work-focused interview" was not at all helpful. She proposed that "personal development interview" would be a better, more positive and less frightening way of describing what is at hand for all those who are required to attend a ONE interview.
In response to that suggestion, the Minister stated at Third Reading:
"I take the point about the work-focused interview in relation to the comments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, some of which I [rather] sympathise with. In future we shall describe the interviews as 'personal adviser meetings' in order to lower the possibility of stress and tension associated with the word 'interview'. That point was sensitively made and we are, indeed, taking [that] on board".—[Official Report, 27/10/99; col. 360.]
Do we now take it that this point is not being taken on board and, if not, can the Minister explain why not?
In addition, the Government said that three attempts should be made to contact a claimant before his benefits are stopped or his claim rejected (Hansard, 13th April 1999, Standing Committee D on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill), and I am very pleased to hear that that is being continued. However, can the Minister explain why only five working days are allowed for a claimant to demonstrate good cause for having failed to take part in an interview before a decision will be made?
With reference to compulsion, we continue to question the value of insisting on interviews for those benefit recipients in particular who are sick or who have caring responsibilities when there is no prospect of them being able realistically to consider employment. As we said repeatedly through the passage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, we would prefer those people to be invited to attend an interview—an invitation which we believe they would accept if and when their particular circumstances enabled them to do so.
Following on from the debate in this House last evening concerning the prospects for lone parents, I believe that it is reasonable to suggest that Members on all sides of the House would prefer this more practical and realistic approach. There is no doubt that the ONE scheme has much to offer in terms of a single
1914
point of access and the availability of advice and assistance for those able to contemplate work. We shall continue to monitor closely the pilot scheme to see whether, for example, personal advisers are really able to cope with such a diverse and often complex range of issues that will confront them and test their skill base.
In addition, we shall wait with interest to see what happens to those who do not respond to requests to attend the ONE interview, in which case they will lose their entitlement to benefit altogether. Do the Government really intend to watch those people become homeless and destitute?
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the informative way in which she introduced the orders. I thank her also for confirming the undertaking that she gave during the course of the Bill to take account of the concerns that I had regarding those with disabilities in relation to the interview. I remember that the noble Baroness told me that those people would have, I believe, 200 hours of training. In an idle moment, I calculated that that would amount to five weeks—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, over seven weeks.
Lord Addington: Over seven weeks. The noble Baroness evidently is feeling in brave form as she said that from the Government Bench. However, I hope that that will prove sufficient to deal with all the problems that those with disabilities have. I also hope that the primary requisite in the training will be to realise that sometimes people do not know what is going on. That is the point that I have always made about ensuring that the training is carried out properly. I have always believed that an expert is the person who bows out occasionally and says that he does not know the answer to something. I hope that that is put across during the training and that the trainees will realise that putting off the matter for a few days may be very important. However, that is a personal point.
The main point of concern from these Benches is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, mentioned, the idea that if people fail through this system conceivably they could be left without any means of legal support. The noble Baroness said that three realistic attempts would be made to contact them and, if we look at the regulations, that seems reasonable. But the fact of the matter is that felons convicted of the most serious crime will still be fed. The danger is that if they fail in this system they will not be fed. They will not have legal access and recourse.
I once worked with a prison reform charity that was trying to get people out of the habit of offending. The majority of the crimes that it dealt with were economically based. My noble friend Lord Russell has pointed out on numerous occasions that we do not know yet the correspondence between disentitlement to benefit and illegal activity—the selling of oneself for sexual purposes, drug trading, petty crime and so on. It is to be hoped that this pilot will give us that information, if we look at the right statistics or look far

1915
enough and widely enough. That is one worry about this approach. I hope that the noble Baroness will concede that it is a genuine, well-founded worry.
Moreover, those who have a reduction in benefit, because they fail to reach an interview, will be pushed towards the situation I have described. The effect will not be so dramatic, but if one is on a low income and loses a percentage, that hits much harder. I think the noble Baroness would agree; it is probably self-evident. These are very real concerns.
The noble Baroness spoke about how people would be chased up, and I noted that she said that people would be trying to get to homes. There will probably be many disorganised people with disorganised domestic arrangements. When I spoke about the interview training I was once again thinking about the number of people who have literacy problems. It has been assessed that some 50 per cent of the prison population has dyslexia, and certainly 50 per cent will have literacy problems—not always in the same group, I hasten to add. It will be very difficult in many cases to reach these people and to get some form of notification to them, and they may not be in places where funds are available. A young person just discharged from prison may well be very difficult to track down, especially if a family relationship has broken down.
These are very real worries. If this system fails to address them, there is a danger that we shall create more social exclusion and a higher prison population than would otherwise be the case.
I come talking softly, but I hope carrying as big a stick as I can manage when I refer to a letter that appeared in the Independent on 23rd November last year. Signed by my noble friend Lord Russell and Dr Steve Webb, it said that we would support no more disentitlement measures until information from the pilot studies was available to us. When it is, we shall judge according to the evidence. As the Minister knows, we on these Benches regard ourselves as free to vote against regulations. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that we have real concerns, and will use all the parliamentary processes available to us to draw attention to them.
Having said that, I appreciate what the Minister said about the disability entitlement, and the sympathy that exists in regard to that. I hope that that attitude will be extended to the other matters that I have raised.
I have only one consideration with regard to the idea of contracting out. It is that any private firm that is used to do the work should have exactly the same standard of training for its employees as has already been discussed with civil servants.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the Opposition spokespeople have responded to the regulations.
I turn first to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. I am glad that she was able to welcome the initiatives more generally.
1916
The first point she made was her concern as to whether we had reneged on a commitment not to use the words "work-focused interviews". The words "work-focused interviews" are part of the primary legislation. But I assure her that we listened carefully to the discussion and to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. That is why all the literature and notifications in the ONE pilots will use the term "personal adviser meeting" rather than "work-focused interview". So I believe that we have done everything which she asked for. I hope that she is pleased with that and I am happy to put that on the record.
Secondly, I am happy to confirm that we shall indeed be making three attempts at contact and not just one. There is also the belt-and-braces provision of a home visit in case, by any chance, there has been an administrative error or a mistake in relation to the telephone number, address or whatever. Therefore, the home visit should clarify the position.
The noble Baroness asked why there will be only five working days to demonstrate good cause. In practice, if the client is in a situation where he has failed to attend three meetings, then the personal adviser will wait a full working week before making a decision that that requirement to attend has not been met. We believe that that is adequate, given that we have made every effort to make contact. But even that period can be extended for a further month if a client is unable to contact us within that period because, for example, the client is in hospital. The whole point about the pilot schemes is to enable us to see what the hiccups are and then make a decision as to whether we need to extend our guidance and train our staff accordingly.
Therefore, we believe that we have addressed the contingencies and concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. If we have not, then, as I say, we shall learn from the pilot schemes.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked what may happen to those who become homeless and destitute as a consequence, by losing their benefits. I wish to make two points in that regard.
The first point is that in the 1970s until the previous administration took over, an interview was an integral part of the benefit claim. As far as I recall, there were something like six million interviews per year. It was an integral part of the claim. Over recent years that dwindled down to a few thousand interviews. We have seen fraud grow as a result and people have also developed a very passive attitude towards receiving their giro. Often they do not have a full knowledge of all the benefits to which they are entitled.
We are going back to what worked in the 1970s; namely, to build the interview integrally into the benefit claim.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I wish to ask one further question which I should have asked before. Will part

1917
of the interview—under whatever title—be to make sure that the person receives all the benefits to which he is entitled?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes. It obviously depends on the circumstances but certainly part of the interview will be to discuss benefit entitlement. For example, we already have stories of carers coming in from some of the ONE pilots. Because of the nature of the caring responsibility, they are some way from going back into the labour market and those people have had benefits drawn to their attention to which they were entitled but were not receiving. That has been appreciated.
In the same way, a lone parent may not be aware that if she were to go back to work she may be entitled to a child tax credit or a childcare credit which is one aspect of the WFTC of which many lone parents are not, as yet, fully aware and which it may be important for them to know about.
I want to make two points dealing with the rhetoric about people who are homeless and destitute. First, we have always, even under previous Labour governments, had an interview as part of the benefit process. Dropping that and trying to do it by way of paper or by telephone has not worked. We are going back to the procedure which we believe will be supportive and helpful. The voluntary organisations with which we have worked welcome that.
Secondly, no one needs to be homeless or destitute. This is not a prison sentence. Anyone who is not receiving his benefit because he has not turned up for the interview can have that benefit reinstated as soon as he does so. For example, if someone has moved address and, as a result, has lost his benefit entitlement, he can re-apply. There is no problem. If people wish to renew a benefit which has, so to speak, run out, they must attend the interview and go through the procedures. I cannot see why that should lead us into rhetoric about homelessness and destitution.
Equally, I must say that the Liberal Democrats should not wave a big stick threatening to defy the views of the elected House on those issues by voting down regulations, which in relation to such issues is quite improper. That is particularly the case because some of the things for which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, called, have already been done. Perhaps his noble friend Lord Russell should have appreciated that point. There has already been a jobseeker's allowance evaluation, in 1998. It was a qualitative research on disallowed and sanctioned claimants, which provides much of the information the noble Lord sought. If there are any other research areas which he or his noble friend Lord Russell feel should be explored further, we are always open to consider them and the methodology. I do not believe that we should be criticised for not doing what we have already done. Perhaps noble Lords were not aware that it had already been done.
1918
Given all I have said, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to approve the regulations and that, as a result, we shall be able to establish the ONE pilots on a firm basis.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracting Out (Functions relating to Social Security) Order 2000
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Penalties) Regulations 2000
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these regulations will allow Opra to impose a civil sanction on trustees who fail to produce audited accounts on time or fail to provide required information to the Registrar of Occupational and Personal Pensions. Opra currently has power only to impose a criminal penalty and that has not proved as effective as intended. As your Lordships will be aware, all Pensions Act regulations which involve a criminal sanction are required to go through the affirmative procedure. We are seeking to set appropriate offences as civil offences. Essentially, the two that we are seeking to establish are where employers fail to pay pension contributions on time. Rather than having to pursue a lengthy and time-consuming criminal prosecution, Opra would be able to impose an immediate civil sanction for such breaches. We believe that that is a more appropriate procedure than a criminal prosecution.
I could take the time of the House in explaining why the provision is necessary, but I wonder whether your Lordships would seek for me to do so tonight. I hope that I have your Lordships' consent in moving the regulations. Unless there are any questions about what the regulations will achieve, which is essentially to move from criminal to civil offences where employers fail to return their accounts on time and trustees fail to undergo properly their responsibilities, I am happy to move the Motion. But if your Lordships have any further inquiries, I should be happy to try to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past six o'clock.

  Defamation Proceedings: Financial Assistance to Crown Servants
  Defamation Proceedings: Financial Assistance to Crown Servants
  Data Protection: Personal Privacy
  Data Protection: Personal Privacy
  Interception of Communications
  Interception of Communications
  GM Foods: Labelling
  GM Foods: Labelling
  BSE: EU-approved Tests
  BSE: EU-approved Tests
  Programme-making: Ethnic Minority Involvement
  Programme-making: Ethnic Minority Involvement
  Regional Tourist Boards
  Regional Tourist Boards