Sitting of 4 May 2000

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

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 11 May.

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 11 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Job Retention Pilots
    Mr. Andrew Miller: If he will make a statement on the role of the new job retention pilots. [119615]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The pilots will develop effective ways to prevent people having to give up work because of illness and disability. Each week, about 3,000 people are forced to stop working for those reasons and only 300 will ever work again; that is an unacceptable waste of talent. We will announce our detailed plans for the pilots in the summer.
    Mr. Miller: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. However, we really need a cultural change. Will she join me in urging employers' organisations to bring about such a change so as to make it possible for people who develop disabilities to retain their jobs?
    Ms Hodge: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that we require a cultural change. Some employers are working closely with us and on their own to ensure that they employ more disabled people. For example, Centrica in Manchester has worked with us on a pilot; the company has taken on 50 disabled people. May I share a little story with the House, Madam Speaker? It is a good one. When I visited Centrica, I met a man, who had been out of work
    276
    for five years—this is not very funny—who had a hearing impairment. He was given work by Centrica, who told me—surprise, surprise—that his productivity was double that of any of his co-workers. What was especially warm and heartening was that three of the people at his workstation were learning how to sign. That is exactly the social and economic inclusion to which we aspire.

    SSA (South Gloucestershire)
    Mr. Steve Webb: On what basis the education standard spending assessment for primary school pupils in South Gloucestershire was calculated. [119616]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Education funding for primary and secondary school pupils is distributed to local education authorities through standard spending assessments, which are calculated using objective information about the demographic, economic and social characteristics of an area—such as pupil numbers, census data and income support data.
    Mr. Webb: As the Minister is well aware, the primary children of South Gloucestershire are at the bottom of the league for funding in England, as they have been ever since the council was created. Do the Government believe that it costs less to educate a child in South Gloucestershire than anywhere else in the country? If that is not their belief, when can my constituents expect the situation to change?
    Ms Morris: The answer to the second question is, probably not. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for taking every opportunity to put that question. Time and again we have made the answer clear and, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I repeat that, when we make changes, we must get them right. The consequence of getting it wrong is what he and we are living with-18 years of inaction on SSAs and LEA funding by the previous Conservative Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would prefer us to tackle the matter properly by looking at the evidence and building a fair and transparent system that gives every school and LEA a chance to raise standards.
    A Green Paper will be published in the summer. Meanwhile, I know that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that we are doing our best—within the freeze on SSAs—to put more funding into schools. As his question was on primary schools, he will welcome the fact that, whereas about 3,500 five, six and seven-year-olds in his area were in classes of more than 30 at the time of the general election, the number is now as low as 670. We are making progress where we can; we shall review the funding in the summer.
    Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the work of the E40 Group, of which South Gloucestershire—like my authority, Gloucestershire—is a member? Will she consider not only additional educational needs, but the proposals to try to bring below-average spending authorities up to the average, so that the whole system is genuinely fair?
    Ms Morris: I have indeed considered the work of the E40 Group on—in its view—the worst-funded LEAs. That is part of the evidence that we shall examine; it will

    277
    inform our judgments. We all know that it is not easy to decide on a formula that everyone considers to be fair. No Member of the House has ever told me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the funding formula treats them too well; we must bear that in mind. However, of course, we acknowledge that some children and some schools need extra resources to raise standards, so we are not arguing for a flat rate. My right hon. Friend is interested in a pupil entitlement on which we can build with fair, transparent extra money for those schools that need it most. That is without commitment to the work of the E40 Group, but, of course, its research will form part of our thinking over the next few months.

    Teacher Training
    Mr. Tom Cox: If he will make a statement on the teacher recruitment and training salaries for postgraduates entering teacher training. [119618]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): On 30 March, I announced training salaries for postgraduate initial teacher training, improved golden hellos for those training and going on to teach in shortage subjects and new funding for schools offering places on the graduate training programme, with 13,000 salaries to encourage, in particular, mature students into that route. Since then, almost 2,000 people have applied to do postgraduate certificates of education—nearly 30 per cent. up on the same period last year. I have asked the Teacher Training Agency to help reinforce that by putting in place a major advertising campaign. Given that, and the new measures to improve the salary and earning prospects of teachers, we hope to be able to attract many more of our best graduates into teaching.
    Mr. Cox: I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed and welcome reply. He and his team are to be congratulated on the efforts that they have made to achieve substantial increases in salary to graduates coming into the teaching profession and on the increased status that such salaries will give to the profession. Everyone from both sides of the House knows from our communities that the general public want ever-increasing respect for the teaching profession. My right hon. Friend's announcement this morning is a clear indication of the Government's commitment to that.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend. The endeavour now is to get everyone, including teachers and their leaders, to spell out the message that teaching is a good profession to enter. It is fulfilling and rewarding and it is an essential part of ensuring that the next generation is better educated than the last.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Those are welcome messages, but more important will be the ability to retain new teachers, and that will depend on sustained funding of pay increases. Why has the Secretary of State top-sliced the budget, causing so many problems for local education authorities?
    Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have increased funding for this financial year by 8.5 per cent. in real terms, which is as much as the total
    278
    real-terms increase that the previous Government put in during the whole of the previous Parliament. Our plans for the new pay awards and for the retention of teachers resulting from the increased salary potential will be welcomed by teachers from this autumn as they see the results coming through. That new money will be sustained over the years to come, so that those applying to go through the threshold to access the new pay levels and new incremental scales will have the guarantee that resources will be available not just from this autumn, but in the years to come.
    Dr. George Turner: I welcome the measures that the Government have introduced to ensure that teachers are properly paid and have proper respect in the communities that they serve, but can my right hon. Friend answer a question that was raised by a teacher in one of my local schools? She told me that she was disappointed to find that there was a time barrier and that she would have to serve for a number years before she could receive the enhancements under the new scheme. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that good enough measures are in place to ensure that teachers can be promoted rapidly in the same way as young people so often are if they work in the private sector?
    Mr. Blunkett: All teachers who are at point 9 on the scale or beyond will be entitled to access the £2,000 uplift and the consequent incremental scales that will take them to £30,000 and beyond. Those who are not yet at point 9 on the scale because they have not been in the profession long enough will be entitled, as from this autumn, to access the new fast-track procedures that will enable them to move more rapidly through the existing incremental scale so that they are able to access the new thresholds.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Not only have the Government failed to meet their targets for recruitment into teaching training—recruitment into initial teacher training fell again this year—but a recent poll showed that more than half of those in the teaching profession expect to leave it in the next decade because of the work load, stress and bureaucratic burdens that the Secretary of State is imposing on them. The Government's own better regulation taskforce has said that
    over-elaborate processes are being used to achieve straightforward objectives, leading to unnecessary duplication and confusing, excessive lines of accountability.
    As an aid to attracting postgraduates and others into teaching and to encouraging more teachers to stay in the profession, will the Secretary of State now tell the House how many fewer, compared to last year, circulars, letters and notes his Department intends to send out in paper or electronic form to schools, directly or through local education authorities, in the remaining seven and a half months of this year?
    Mr. Blunkett: It would be futile to give a statistical answer setting out how many pieces of paper I shall send out or the number of electronic communications that will be made, not least because, as the better regulation taskforce pointed out, many of the missives that schools are complaining about come from other agencies or local authorities and not from the Department, where the working party report has been implemented. [Interruption.] I am being heckled by Conservative

    279
    Members. The statistics that they quoted publicly turned out to relate to education authority missives to schools and not to the batch mailings from the Department.
    There is the problem of ensuring that the material that goes out is relevant, is in the right form, is accessible and genuinely consults where that is necessary. We shall take whatever steps are needed to make that happen and to ensure that we get things right. In the end, people are not put off from coming into teaching because of consulting on regulations and the sending out of pieces of paper to ensure that teachers have up-to-date information on best teaching practice. They are put off by the Jonahs who keep on saying that teaching is a bad profession to be in and playing down the enormous gains that have been made in literacy, numeracy, standards of education and pay levels.

    Education and Training Inspections
    Dr. Rudi Vis: If he will make a statement on area-wide inspections of education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds. [119619]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): Area inspection reports provide, for the first time, an overview of education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds in an area. They will identify issues to be addressed, and it is vital that these are followed up in the interests of the young people concerned. The first report, a very useful one on Hackney and Islington, was published on 7 April. The new inspections are an important mechanism in our strategy to achieve decent options for young people.
    Dr. Vis: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, from next year onwards, the local learning and skills councils will play a crucial role after the inspections have been completed because they will integrate both funding and planning for 16 to 19-year-olds? Is it not the case that the Conservative party divided schools and colleges—providers of education—in such a way that they could not sensibly plan?
    Mr. Wicks: I agree with my hon. Friend. We inherited a difficult situation in which too many young people—about one in 11 throughout the nation aged 16 to 18—are not in education, training or employment. We are determined to rectify that appalling situation in the interests of those young people and their families—hence the importance of the Learning and Skills Council. It will be set up by the Learning and Skills Bill, which is in Committee. I agree with my hon. Friend that it represents an important new mechanism. It joins education maintenance allowances and the new Connexions service for young people to ensure that each and every one of our young people will have the best chance in life. In these endeavours, it would help our school sixth forms if the Tory party did not send them missives containing political propaganda and giving misinformation about the Government's intentions for high-quality sixth forms.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Leaving aside the Minister's gratuitous abuse, is it not time that he put his house in order by taking a grip on the grotesque anomalies that are being created directly by his Department in relation to inspections, whereby the training of young
    280
    persons is the remit of the adult learning inspectorate and their education is the responsibility of Ofsted? Any area inspections will have to be led somewhat uncomfortably by a framework arrangement between the two inspectorates. When the Minister has sorted out these bristling anomalies, will he get whatever inspectorate he then brings forward to consider carefully recruitment into further education, where on Government targets enrolments should be rising by about 10 per cent. a year on average? In fact, last week's figures from the Further Education Funding Council showed that they were falling between 1 and 2 per cent.
    Mr. Wicks: We are concerned about quality as well as quantity. We inherited a situation in which the numbers were inflated and quality was declining as a result of abuses of the franchising system. We shall stick to our targets, not for the sake of the arithmetic, but because we are concerned with quality and quantity. There can be no doubt about that. The Hackney and Islington inspection shows that sensible inspections are taking place; indeed, we are confident that different kinds of inspection can work well together.
    Serious and rigorous debate about good practice is needed, not the Tory scaremongering that I highlighted. The Conservative party wrote to schools giving misleading information to parents about our intentions for school sixth forms, which have an important place in the future.
    Mr. Barry Jones: In general, does my hon. Friend believe that further education colleges providing for that age group are equal to the task, bearing in mind the big reorganisation that they have undergone in recent years? Is he aware of my concern for those young men and women who are not academically able and tend to find themselves always at the bottom of the pile, especially in relation to their job prospects? Would my hon. Friend care to visit the Deeside further education college in my constituency and see the good work that it is doing with young people?
    Mr. Wicks: I certainly agree that our further education colleges are doing some extraordinarily good work with, for example, some of the most disadvantaged people, giving those young people the second chance that further education is all about. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the college mentioned by my right hon. Friend and other colleges throughout the country.

    Economic Activity Rates
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: What measures the Government are taking to raise the economic activity rate for men aged 50 to 65 years. [119620]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): The Government have put in place a range of measures to help to raise the economic activity rate among men aged 50 to 65. Those measures are designed to expand the labour market and address skill shortages. The new deal for people aged 50-plus—which was launched by the Prime Minister last month—and the new deal for disabled people are helping many people over 50 to find work.

    281
    That drive is supported by the attack on age discrimination made through the code of practice for age diversity in employment, the publication of which was warmly welcomed by the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.
    Mr. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an ethos has developed over the past 20 years which resulted in people over 50—many of whom voluntarily took early redundancy—feeling that they were on the scrap heap, but that that has now changed? As we approach full employment, the skills, expertise and extra output of those people is needed. Indeed, the income that they can bring is needed in many low-income households.
    Will the new deal for the over-50s have a regional bias to help older industrial areas—such as my constituency—and those areas where there are high numbers of over-50s on incapacity benefit?
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend and entirely agree with his emphasis on the importance of halting the waste of skills and experience and delivering for all people of working age the prospect of employment for those who can work and security for those who cannot.
    The important point is that the jobs are there and we must ensure that employers recognise the clear benefits of diversity in their work force. We are tackling age discrimination by putting in place job search programmes such as the new deal which, in its pilot phase, has already had considerable success in getting older people into work, offering individuals help, employment credit and assistance with in-work training. The new deal offers a package of measures and practical help, putting people into available jobs. It is linked to the intensive help being provided through employment zones in areas of high unemployment and the work of action teams who, later this year, will begin to tackle incidences of high unemployment. We have made a good start. There is a lot more to do, but older workers should recognise that they have much to fear from the Tories, whose hostility to the new deal and the help and opportunity that it has provided to young people and unemployed older people has been unremitting.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: The only reason that we are not enthusiastic about the new deal is that it simply does not work.
    I should declare an interest in connection with the question, in that, later this year, I shall fall into the relevant age category.
    Is it not true that what will count will be not the new deal or other programmes, but a change of attitude on the part of employers? Is it not true that older people, even old, grey-haired sketchwriters, have as much to offer as anyone else? With your permission, Madam Speaker, I shall read one paragraph from a very good and very lucid letter that I received this morning. It is actually about the possibility of our changing to a dollar currency, rather than to the euro, and I entirely accept that it would be out of order were it not that it demonstrates that age should be no barrier. It states:
    I think perhaps that I should remark that I am now over 100 years old and have served in both World Wars, in Mesopotamia, India, the UK … Canada and the USA.
    282
    Written by Brigadier E. M. Ransford, the letter demonstrates that what counts is not one's age, but one's enthusiasm, energy and zest for life.
    Ms Jowell: Let me deal first with the hon. Gentleman's unfounded assertion that the new deal does not work. Do not take it from the Government—take it from independent research that confirms that the new deal is getting young unemployed people into work, that they are staying there and that it is having a substantial impact on reducing the scourge of long-term unemployment. If I had to choose between listening to the Opposition's assertions about the new deal and talking to young people who know that they would not have got into work without it, I know whose views I would take more seriously.
    The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of changing culture, but such a change alone is not enough. The new deal for older people, which offers practical help, advice and support, is the way in which we shall deliver on the hopes and ambitions of older people to leave benefit and get back into work.
    Mr. John Bercow: When 2.8 million people between 50 and retirement age do not work, half of them are on benefits and half have been jobless for five years, why do the Government offer them only a tiny fraction of the funds that are given to the young unemployed? Exactly how many of the older unemployed does the Minister expect to return to the labour market as a result of the new deal for the over-50s? When she answers that question, will she explain why she has stood idly by as older people are driven out of the civil service, the teaching profession and the armed forces; and why the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) have been denied ministerial office, simply because they are not spring chickens? Is that not proof positive that Ministers preach inclusion of older people, but then kick them in the teeth?
    Ms Jowell: Perhaps we can take that as an Opposition mea culpa for the decision of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) not to seek reselection for the next election.
    To return to the question, we expect that the new deal for older people will help about 45,000 people to go from benefit into work. However, it is in its early stages. The new deal offers the personal help, advice and support that people need, and the sort of help that older people need differs from that which younger people need.
    As with all the new deals, we will learn the lessons of experience and apply them in practice, and will continue to build on the success of the new deal. We will take the advice and help offered by employers and young people who have participated in the new deal, rather than taking lessons from the Opposition, who have always been hostile to the opportunities offered by the new deal to young people.

    Apprenticeships
    Shona McIsaac: What plans he has to improve modern apprenticeships. [119621]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We recently outlined plans to improve the quality and rigour of modern apprenticeships, taking account of the recommendations of the skills taskforce and others. We will be consulting on the proposals, which are part of our drive to raise quality and standards in learning, and secure coherence and progression on the work-based route. That will involve foundation modern apprenticeships, which will subsume the youth and national traineeships, as well as expanding the advanced modern apprenticeships that have been so popular.
    Shona McIsaac: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in an area such as mine, which has oil refineries, chemical industries, docks and a great deal of manufacturing, it is vital that we provide high-quality modern apprenticeships and vocational training for young people who choose not to go into full-time education after leaving school? That will address the skills gap about which industry in my constituency complains, following years of cheap, low-quality youth training schemes peddled by the Conservatives.
    Mr. Blunkett: It is essential that such high-quality routes are available; 350,000 young people have entered such schemes, almost 150,000 of them on the advanced modern apprenticeships. The programme that we are putting in place will increase the taught-time element, the specified period of off-the-job training, and the minimum period of training, and will tighten the entry requirements. There will be a clear route to complement the drive to get young people to stay on in full-time education at 16, to ensure that no one enters adult life without the qualifications to guarantee that they can get and hold a job.

    ICT Training (Teachers)
    Mr. Derek Twigg: What plans he has to enhance the training in information and communications technology given to serving teachers. [119622]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): Training for serving teachers in information and communications technology is part of our three-pronged integrated strategy for those technologies: first, an unprecedented £700 million investment in computers in schools and in the supporting infrastructure; secondly, a national curriculum that provides for the teaching of information and communications technology in our schools and its use across the curriculum; and finally, a £230 million teacher training programme in the use of those technologies, provided by the new opportunities fund.
    Mr. Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Although training is essential, it is not in itself the answer to the problem. The money is welcome as well, but part of the difficulty that I see in my constituency and elsewhere is getting schools wired up quickly enough and having the equipment installed. What is being done to speed up the wiring and re-equipping of schools, to ensure that they get the full benefit of the Government's strategy?
    Mr. Wills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the importance of integrating the strategy.
    284
    As he is aware, there are three prongs to the strategy. We need to get the hardware into schools, we need to get the right quality software into schools, and we need to make sure that schools are properly wired up.
    The internet will be crucial to the future of those technologies and to the future of our children in schools. That is why we are investing £37 million in developing broad band consortiums on a regional basis, to make sure that every school in the country has proper broad band access in the future. We are already making considerable progress on that. When we came to office in 1997, only 17 per cent. of primary schools had access to the internet. In 1999, the figure was 62 per cent., and we are on target to make sure that by 2002 every school in the country has access to the internet.
    Mr. James Clappison: Following the Government's regrettable decision to abolish the assisted places scheme and thus deprive children from lower-income families of the opportunity to go to independent schools, are not the Government making another mistake by excluding teachers from independent schools from training in information and communications technology? Should not we be taking down barriers between the state and the independent sector rather than putting up more barriers? Is not putting up barriers in that way likely to prove damaging to the state and the independent sector? Is it not utterly feeble of the Minister to say, as he did in a written answer to me, that
    The Department is currently exploring ways in which the independent and state sector can work together in order to spread good practice in the use of ICT training …—[Official Report, 19 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 561W.],
    while at the same time taking away from teachers in independent schools the opportunity to have such training?
    Mr. Wills: No. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not find it within himself to welcome the fact that we are working together to explore these opportunities. Perhaps I may give him a short lesson in why we have taken the steps that we have. Scarce resources must always have priorities attached to them. The making of hard choices is a difficult concept for an Opposition who are so busy stapling themselves to their tax guarantee, but hard choices are what we have to make, and that is what we have done. The new opportunities fund training is targeted at the national curriculum. It supports the literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools and it complements Government funding for ICT equipment in state schools.
    Independent schools do not operate within the national curriculum, nor are they required to address other Government strategies. Eligibility for the training depends on there being sufficient ICT equipment in schools and on satisfactory ICT development plans being in place. We cannot require such a coherent and integrated approach in the independent sector, so we thought it right to target our resources on the state sector. We make no apologies for doing that. Parents are well aware of that when they choose independent schools for their children. It is for the

    285
    independent schools to access the training that is suitable for their teachers and the ethos and programmes that they adopt.
    Valerie Davey: Schools in my constituency welcome the further development of the equipment and the training, but I should like to hear further from my hon. Friend the Minister on the extent and nature of that training. Will he confirm that it is not simply training in the use of the equipment, but that it is a tool in the education service for the further development of the curriculum?
    Mr. Wills: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The whole purpose of the training is to teach teachers not how to switch on computers but how to integrate them into the curriculum; how to deliver all the technology's benefits for children's educational experiences and learning. That is important. We have allowed a great deal of local flexibility and autonomy for schools to choose the particular method of training that best suits their particular circumstances, and also to choose the providers that suit them best. There are about 50 separate providers of such training from which schools may choose.

    Class Sizes
    Mr. George Stevenson: What progress has been made in reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. [119624]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The Government are well on course to deliver their pledge to reduce the size of infant classes to 30 pupils by September 2001 at the latest. Statistics published recently show that the number of five, six and seven-year-olds in infant classes of more than 30 went down by half from January 1999 to January 2000. By this September, we expect as few as 3 per cent. of children to remain in infant classes of 31 or more.
    Mr. Stevenson: The £2.3 million made available for staff and buildings in Stoke-on-Trent, which this year alone will mean an additional 40 primary school teachers, is extremely welcome. Does not my right hon. Friend's reply starkly illustrate the difference between the Government, who deliver on their pledges, and Conservative Members who sit back and criticise? Is not another success the increasing number of children who now find that, because of the Government's policy, they can go to their first preference school? Is not that in stark contrast to the Opposition's dire predictions when the Government announced the policy?
    Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I congratulate Stoke-on-Trent local education authority on developing a plan that has reduced the number of children in large classes from 2,500 at the time of the general election to only 750 now. Stoke-on-Trent LEA will deliver the pledge a full year ahead of time, which is very much in the interests of children in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    I further agree that the pledge has been delivered. It has been delivered early and, as my hon. Friend said, has created more places in popular schools. Of the extra
    286
    places that have been created, 12,000 have been in over-subscribed schools, and that has increased parental choice. The key point is that that, together with the Government's and teachers' success in the literacy and numeracy hours and the expansion of places for early years learning, means that in three years we have delivered the better start to schooling that so many parents wanted and for which they voted at the general election.
    Mr. David Heath: Although I greatly welcome the reduction in class sizes in infant schools, will the Minister deal with two problems that result from that? Contrary to the experience of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), in my area the rigidity of the admission appeals criteria means that many frustrated parents cannot get their children into schools with limited accommodation. Secondly, there are knock-on effects for class sizes in the upper end of primary, middle and secondary schools. When will there be a timetable for reducing class sizes for older children?
    Ms Morris: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's question stands up. The recent statistics on junior schools show that this year, for the first time, there has been a reduction in the number of classes of more than 30 children in junior schools which cater for seven to 11-year-olds. Our class size pledge has not been at the expense of older primary school children—far from it. Class sizes in infant, junior and primary schools are down. That shows the importance of what has happened over the past three years.
    The hon. Gentleman is right in that the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools has increased from 17:1 to 17.1:1. What decision would he have made on allocating resources in the first three years of a Parliament? We made a pledge on class sizes in infant schools because that is where small classes matter.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made money available in the Budget. It will be paid directly to schools so that they can decide how to spend it. If every secondary school decided to use that money to employ teachers—they could do that if they wished—there would be 3,500 extra teachers. Rather than halting the increase in secondary school class sizes, such a decision would reverse it. We have fulfilled our pledge on infant and primary schools; the decision on secondary schools is in the hands of head teachers.

    National Grid for Learning
    Mrs. Betty Williams: If he will make a statement on the development of the national grid for learning. [119626]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): The national grid for learning has made great strides towards becoming the centre for learning on the Internet. We have made tremendous progress in connecting our primary and secondary schools to the internet, and we are on target for making sure that every school in the country is connected

    287
    by 2002. A great deal has already been achieved. However, much remains to be done. That is why we have made more funding available for the next two years.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He said earlier that 62 per cent. of primary schools had been connected to the internet by last year. Will he confirm that 93 per cent. of secondary schools had also been connected by last year? Will he stress that new technology can be used to enhance standards for pupils with special educational needs?
    Mr. Wills: I am happy to confirm that 93 per cent. of secondary schools are connected to the internet. We expect every secondary school in the country to have access to the internet by 2002.
    Information and communications technology is important for the education of all children, but it can be a key resource for children with special educational needs. It has enormous potential to enhance the educational experiences of those pupils and the capacity to open the door to their full participation in education alongside their peers. It is a powerful means of combating the exclusion of that specific group of pupils.
    As part of our strategy for ensuring that the national grid for learning deals fully with those needs, we launched a new website—the inclusion site—earlier this year. We believe that it will become the centre for resources and advice on special educational needs.

    Sure start
    Mr. Phil Sawford: If he will make a statement on progress in implementing the sure start programme. [119628]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Of the 60 original trailblazers, we now have 57 up and running and another three are about to start. They benefit 237,000 children and their families. A further 69 sure start programmes have been invited to submit their final plans. As I found when I visited the sure start programme at Accrington and Church in the Hyndburn borough last week, there is enormous enthusiasm among the families, the community and those who are playing their part as partners to make that new foundation for overcoming inequality a reality in those areas.
    Mr. Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that although a measure of the sure start programme's success will be the readiness of young children to start school—it will also help their social skills and their personal development—there is another aspect to the equation, namely the help that parents need? How will sure start support new parents as they embark on the important task of nurturing the next generation?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the sure start programme is intended to help, support and develop parents' skills from the moment the child is born. We are considering the development of work in the antenatal phase so that we can develop, with parents, the capability to cope from the moment of birth to ensure that the child development and educational skills
    288
    are available and that they link with the community health services as effectively and quickly as possible. We believe that development during the early years will make an enormous difference in narrowing the gap between the haves and have-nots and will enable our schools to take those children on in a way that would not otherwise be possible.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: I am glad that you called me just in time, Madam Speaker. I have to pick up my two-and-a-half-year-old from his nursery school at 12.30. Many of us have been under huge constituency pressure about pre-schools, which are under threat. The Pre-School Learning Alliance calculates that up to 3,000 pre-schools may close because of the drive to get children into ordinary schools. I am sure that the Secretary of State believes that pre-schools do excellent work, so how can we nurture that movement?
    Mr. Blunkett: Playgroups do excellent work, which is why we are putting more public funding into them than ever before and why we have provided an additional £500,000 this year to protect them, but, as the hon. Gentleman himself shows, parents choose whether their child goes to a nursery or a playgroup. He has chosen, and is about to pick up his child from, a nursery. I would be the last person to force him to take his child out of the nursery and place it in a play group.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: The way in which the Government are tackling child poverty—they are making a real impact—is one of their great achievements, and we should loudly celebrate it. The sure start programme tackles inequality and is often focused on inner cities, but will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will also consider the poverty that exists in small areas of deprivation outside cities, and that applications for sure start schemes will be accepted from them so that we tackle inequality in all our communities?
    Mr. Blunkett: The answer to the second part of the question is an unequivocal yes. There is a real need to be able to tailor future programmes to meet the needs of small pockets of deprivation, and we shall do so. On the first part of the question, yes, the programme is designed specifically as a positive, self-help, self-determining method to overcome poverty—not a handout, but a hand up. The 20 per cent. of children in poverty who will benefit from the first programme of sure start investment will be the beneficiaries of what I hope will be long-term investment that will show fruit not merely in terms of the children's development and entry to school, but their life chances throughout the rest of their lives.
    Mr. Phil Willis: We strongly support the sure start programme and compliment the Government on what they are trying to achieve, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is a small part of the overall provision of places for four-year-olds in early years and child care development plans and that an uneven playing field is being developed? Only maintained nursery schools received any additional money in the Budget. Everyone else received nothing, even though they are part of those plans.

    289
    Moreover, in January the Secretary of State told the National Day Nurseries Association:
    Nurseries have raised with us the issue of rates they pay on their premises and their wish for a level playing field … These rates should reflect the fact that childcare providers in the private sector who offer nursery education in similar premises to those in the public sector should not be disadvantaged.
    When will the Secretary of State deliver on the promise that he made in January?
    Mr. Blunkett: All nurseries receive £1,170, so the playing field is level in terms of input. The long-standing issue that has been raised with us relates to whether private nurseries are treated in the same way as other nurseries in terms of council tax. I said in January that we would sort that out, and we will, but it will take time to prepare and deliver the necessary regulations. That is one of the frustrations that accompany the joys of being in government.
    Mrs. Theresa May: I think that fairly soon we shall be experiencing those joys ourselves.
    Does the Secretary of State not realise that all his claims about the success of sure start—and, indeed, about the Government's overall child care strategy—are wearing a bit thin in the view of parents who are suffering from the impact of his policies? He has presided over a fall in the number of child care places with child minders and pre-schools and the closure of 2,000 pre-schools, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) pointed out, more than 3,000 pre-schools are threatened with closure.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), told parents who were worried about the closure of their local nursery schools that they were being elitist. Parents want choice, but they fear that their children are being forced into primary school classes too early as a result of the Government's policies. When will the Secretary of State recognise that parents do, in fact, want choice and do not want to be bossed about constantly by this increasingly interfering Government?
    Mr. Blunkett: So parents do not want to be bossed about, except when the Opposition want to boss them into accepting a particular type of provision. We cannot order parents to choose a particular type of provision. It was, after all, the nursery voucher scheme that encouraged parents and schools to adopt the option of reception classes and "rising fives". The sheer hypocrisy of it all is breathtaking. With child care and early years places, we have in just 18 months created three times as many places as were created throughout the 18 years of Tory government.
    Perhaps the battle that is taking place today between Tory and Liberal Democrat candidates for control of Windsor and Maidenhead council has misled the hon. Lady into believing that gaining control of that council is the same as returning to government. As he may be the only Labour candidate who wins, let me take this opportunity to wish my old school friend Tony Randall every success in the hon. Lady's constituency.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Robert Syms: What recent representations he has received on the financing of higher education. [119636]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations on funding for higher education. His announcement on 23 November 1999 outlined the Government's plans up to 2001–02. To maintain the high quality of our higher education and to encourage research and innovation, we plan to invest more than £1 billion extra over the four years from April 1998—an increase of 11 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Syms: Can the Minister confirm that the last Labour manifesto did not mention that higher education would be given a lower priority under the present Government than it was given under the Conservative Government? A recent parliamentary answer revealed that the last Conservative Government spent 1.29 per cent. of gross domestic product on higher education. The present Government are spending 1.14 per cent. of GDP on higher education. Perhaps the Minister will assure the House that the Government will be more honest about that dismal failure.
    Mr. Wicks: Of course, GDP has increased substantially under the present Government and expenditure in universities is increasing in real terms. If the Conservatives are interested in statistics, let me say that, between 1989 and 1997—the Tory years—there was a real-terms reduction of 36 per cent. per unit cost. That was the reality during the Tory years. That meant—let me spell it out—£2,553 per student. We will maintain quality while seeing numbers rise in our universities.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than 1,000 Scottish students go to the universities of Durham, Northumbria at Newcastle and Newcastle Upon Tyne? Does he share my unease that Scottish students may not find it as easy as they did to go on the course that is deemed correct for them and, equally, the concern about English students who might be going to Scottish universities? What is the Government's attitude to the present financing arrangements?
    Mr. Wicks: The logic of devolution is that the different Governments in this country and in Scotland may make different judgments about the funding of higher education and student finance. We should not grumble about that diversity. In this country, we are confident that our funding system is fair to students and their parents and fair to the taxpayer. It is fair because some 40 per cent. of students are not having to pay tuition fees in this country.
    On the broader point, I am confident that there will be a proper flow of students from both England and Wales to Scotland and vice versa. That has always been a strength of the system and it will be maintained.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received about the abolition of training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement. [119637]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): We have been holding regular discussions with TECs and the TEC National Council since the publication of the "Learning to Succeed" White Paper in June last year. Throughout those discussions, individual TECs and the TEC National Council have been supportive of our plans to introduce a new coherent approach to post-16 learning. I welcome that support and the contribution that TEC board members and staff are making to the development of the learning and skills councils.
    There are obvious anxieties in the period of transition between TECs and the new learning and skills councils. We are talking with the TECs all the way. I thank all involved in the TECs for helping during that period.
    Miss McIntosh: The Minister obviously understands that it is a period of great uncertainty and instability for those working in the TECs. Will he join me in paying tribute to those in such TECs as the North Yorkshire one, which have achieved a certain degree of excellence, particularly in bringing together business expertise and placing those in schools in future employment?
    Will the new organisation be so complex and so big, as indicated by Baroness Blackstone in evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, that everyone will be placed, or will some people who are currently employed by TECs be made redundant?
    Mr. Wicks: The situation regarding individual TECs is complex because TECs' responsibilities vary a great deal. Many staff will perhaps transfer from TECs to the learning and skills councils. Others, given their functions, may seek places with the Small Business Service or other agencies, including the Employment Service. We are working very closely with TECs to ensure that anxieties can be met and that we have a good future. I join the hon. Lady, as I did earlier, in paying tribute to TECs for much good work, not least the North Yorkshire TEC, which I have some knowledge of and which I visited recently.
    Mr. Roger Casale: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the establishment of the South London learning and skills council and the new lifelong learning partnership in my borough of Merton? Does he agree that the Government's new lifelong learning initiatives will be a golden thread that binds the strands of the Department for Education and Employment and will give greater strength and coherence to the Government's approach to welfare reform, labour market reforms and economic reform?
    Mr. Wicks: I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. The great lesson is that we have to make lifelong learning a reality—not only, at the first chance, for those who are aged 16 to 19 but for everyone of whatever age, including those who are in their 50s and early 60s so that they can reskill and retrain. I look forward to the work of the South London learning and skills council, in which my hon. Friend and I have a common interest. I should add that the new Learning and Skills Council will save much money: there will be a £50 million reduction in public spending, which is money that can be used in the front line for learning. Much of that money will be used across the country, but not least in south London and in Greater London. I say that on a day when democracy returns to Greater London.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 MAY—Remaining stages of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.
TUESDAY 9 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Transport Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Transport Bill.
THURSDAY 11 MAY—Debate on the common agricultural policy on a Government motion. Details will be given in the Official Report.

FRIDAY 12 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 MAY—Second Reading of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 16 MAY—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 17 MAY—Remaining stages of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 18 MAY—Second Reading of the Care Standards Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 19 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government motion for Thursday's debate will be tabled in good time?
The right hon. Lady has not announced the Northern Ireland policing Bill, which has been widely trailed and expected. May I ask what has happened to it, as it is getting rather late in the Session to introduce new Bills?
Although we are grateful that the debate on Lords reform is not being held today, when many hon. Members are reconnecting with their electorates, it is an important debate, and it is important that the House should address the key issue of the role and composition of the second Chamber. I therefore hope that it will not be too long before we can have that debate.
There is continuing concern in the House about the future of Longbridge and Dagenham, and it is some time since we had a statement from the Trade and Industry Secretary. Might we expect such a statement next week on progress in the negotiations between BMW and possible bidders?
If there are any developments on Zimbabwe, could the House be kept informed?
294
In today's elections, there are new methods of voting—which are always of interest to hon. Members. Could we have a debate on the implications of those experiments, in case they are extended and applied in future Westminster elections?
The Leader of the House may have received an e-mail message saying "I love you". I have to tell her that, sadly, that affectionate greeting contains a virus which has immobilised the House's internal communications system—the parliamentary data and video network. That means that no Member can receive e-mails from outside, nor indeed can we communicate with each other by e-mail. That has important implications for how we set about our duties and how we keep in touch with our constituents. I understand that, currently, our suppliers have no known cure. Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that everything possible is being done to restore the system? Does she agree that a review is needed to ensure that, in future, our system is adequately protected from such viruses?
The line of route is to be opened during the summer recess for the first time. It is therefore more important than usual for the dates of the summer recess to be known, so that proper planning can be made for that facility. Can the Leader of the House shed any light on that important event?
Mrs. Beckett: I anticipate that the terms of the Government motion for the debate on the common agricultural policy will be tabled later today, or certainly before the weekend, so that the House will have time to consider it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Northern Ireland policing Bill. As he will have observed, it is not tabled for debate next week. The Government intend to table it when they are ready, and remain committed to doing so.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is glad that we are not debating House of Lords reform today. Of course, I recognise that it is an important matter and that the House wishes to have a debate on the subject before too long, and will bear that in mind.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the House can be kept informed about events at Longbridge. He will be aware that it is Department of Trade and Industry questions next Thursday, which will provide an opportunity for that. On both that issue and events in Zimbabwe, the Government will endeavour to keep the House informed.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the implications of any new methods of voting. It will take some time for such an evaluation to take place, but I will bear his request in mind. It might be a suitable topic for Westminster Hall.
I do not know whether I am sorry or pleased that, as far as I am aware, I have not received an e-mail saying "I love you". I understand the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman has identified. I believe that the House authorities have shut down the House's e-mail in order to protect our systems—which seems to be a swift, decisive and sensible approach. Although it is a little early to judge, it seems that part of the problem is arising from the sheer volume of e-mails that the original e-mail generates. I understand that it triggers a response to everybody on a system's address book, so it may be the volume as much as the content.

295
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that, until this moment, no cure has been identified. The House authorities have taken action to protect our systems and I am sure that they and the Information Committee will want to review what is happening and its effect. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the House systems—we are obviously anxious to protect those—as though it is primarily the House that is under attack. I do not know whether he is aware that the same phenomenon is being observed widely across the private sector and across government. Clearly, it is something to which attention will have to be turned and I am confident that the Information Committee, with the House authorities, will do so.
At present, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the dates for the summer recess, although I accept his point about the line of route. As always, we hope to avoid sitting in August.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have not received an e-mail from the Government leadership saying "I love you".
As a qualified engineer and Leader of the House, will my right hon. Friend cast a benign eye on the problems of the greatest monument to 19th century engineering anywhere in Europe, by which I mean the Forth rail bridge? It is tentatively listed as a world heritage site. As hon. Members know, particularly the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), world heritage sites and potential sites have to have management plans. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office to find some way between them of establishing a management plan? Unless it is done soon, that bridge will deteriorate because of the inappropriate treatment by rigblast, which might be all right for North sea oil rigs for 25 years, but is no good for structures that have lasted 100 years and which are expected to last for another century or more. As an engineer, will my right hon. Friend cast her mind over this problem and knock heads together?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand entirely my hon. Friend's great concern and I know that his view will be widely shared, not just in the engineering community but across the United Kingdom. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Departments. I believe that consideration is being given to how proposals for the bridge can be taken forward and I know that everyone will share his anxiety to ensure that the monument is protected and preserved.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Leader of the House as reassured as I am by the fact that the House authorities quickly realised that any message sent to a Member of Parliament saying "I love you" would obviously cause trouble? Seriously, this is an important issue. We are grateful to the House authorities for acting as promptly as they did, but I hope that there will also soon be a report to the House to tell us what can be done to protect our systems of communication, which are extremely important in any democratic legislature.
Why, in the provisional business for the week after next, has it been decided that hot dog sellers in royal parks should take precedence in prime time over the extremely important
296
debate on the future of the House of Lords, which, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said, has been postponed from today? Surely we cannot go on waiting for the Government to come off the fence and tell us what their proposals are. We all know that that will be the burden of the debate on the Wakeham report. Can we now have a firm promise that that important debate will take place before the Whitsun recess?
Mrs. Beckett: First, the House authorities may well have been swift to identify an e-mail addressed to any politician saying "I love you" as something that was not only likely to cause trouble, but was clearly not genuine. Their response was clearly triggered by a sound cynicism.
The hon. Gentleman will have heard previous exchanges about the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, in particular involving the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), so he will know that it is a minor but important measure that will not only remove an inconvenience and ensure that tourists and visitors are properly protected, but prevent the unfortunate instances of violence, gang involvement and food poisoning that have happened under the present arrangements.
The question why the Bill needs half a day to be debated should be addressed to those who tabled four pages of amendments to what was previously regarded as a completely uncontroversial piece of legislation—which is, indeed, sponsored by Conservative Members. The hope and anticipation was that it would have been enacted last year, being uncontroversial, and would now be in effect. If it does not go through soon it cannot possibly take effect this summer, so there is some urgency, although of course I take the point about the importance of Lords reform.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Has my right hon. Friend any good news for me?
Mrs. Beckett: Not yet, I fear.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Given that, at this very moment, voters all over London are struggling with an unfamiliar electoral system for electing the mayor of London, and that today's newspapers report that the Prime Minister intends to stifle debate at his own party conference on the subject of electoral reform—no doubt because he fears the honest and straightforward views of many Labour Members—will the Leader of the House undertake to make time for a debate on the subject in the near future, in this proper debating Chamber and not in Westminster Hall, so that we can hear the true views of Labour Members?
Mrs. Beckett: I would be surprised if anyone was struggling with the voting system. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has voted yet, but I have—
Mrs. Laing: I certainly have.
Mrs. Beckett: I am pleased to hear that. Having voted, I do not think that anyone would find it a struggle.
I am not aware of any proposals to stifle debate on electoral reform at the Labour party conference. Indeed, I would be very surprised if anyone was giving massive

297
thought at the moment—I am certainly not—to what might be debated there. I realise that the story is in the newspapers, but I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that that does not mean that it is necessarily true.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the fact that we are fulfilling an election pledge by bringing back the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill? Will she also consider a debate in the reasonably near future on the continuing problems in getting compensation payments to coal miners for white finger, with an increasing number of people dying before compensation arrives? I know that the Government are very concerned about the matter, but there are still substantial delays.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks on a subject in which he has taken a great interest. He has also been active on the issue of white finger, as have many colleagues, especially on the Labour Benches. The compensation schemes for that affliction are now beginning to come into effect, but concern remains about some of the other schemes. However, I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is working with the unions and representatives of the mining industry to get those payments through as fast as possible.
Mr. William Thompson: In March 1998, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee produced an excellent report on electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. In May last year, the Government responded by saying that they were beginning work on a plan to implement a series of changes in line with the Committee's recommendations. May we have a debate in which we can learn what is happening, because we have heard nothing on the subject since and important elections will take place next year, including local government elections and perhaps even a Westminster election?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and powerful point. The Northern Ireland Office has a great deal on its plate at the moment, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, especially in relation to the elections that are due next year.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on science in the Chamber in the near future? Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have been disappointed that many hon. Members respond to scientific advances with fear and loathing—often arising from incomprehension—rather than hope and inspiration. If we are to capitalise on advances in biotechnology and build on our incredibly successful pharmaceutical industries, we need a better understanding of the issues.
Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view that science is a very important subject. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the Chamber in the near future, but I understand that there will be a debate next week on a report by the Science and Technology Committee in Westminster Hall. I know also that my
298
hon. Friend recently had an important debate there on some medical issues. Because of the existence of Westminster Hall, we are able to air such matters, although it is not easy to find time in the Chamber.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is there any possibility that the Home Secretary will make another statement to tell the House the outcome of the inquiries that he announced in his statement on Tuesday? He said that several questions remained unanswered and that he was seeking answers. Will the House be given those answers? Our constituents who write to us with representations about the need for more policemen on the beat have been left with the unwelcome impression that the largest congregation of policemen brought together for an operational purpose were effectively ordered to stand by and watch while the nation's most important monuments were desecrated.
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Home Secretary has a good track record of keeping the House informed and I am sure he will continue to do so.
Mr. Swayne indicated assent.
Mrs. Beckett: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees. It is right and proper for hon. Members to ask questions about the nature of the decisions that were taken and why they were taken, but it is also important for the House to avoid straying into second-guessing the operational decisions that have to be made by the police. It would be especially unfortunate if any impression were created that any hon. Member was attacking the police. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to do that.
Mr. Swayne indicated assent.
Mrs. Beckett: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees again. We must be grateful to the police for the excellent job they do. Their tactical decisions are the decisions they have to make because they are at the sharp end.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent bid for the assets and workings of Associated British Ports by the Japanese investment bank Nomura? At present, it is not clear whether the bank wishes to develop the land on which the ports stand or wishes to operate the ports. In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend make time available for a debate on the future of UK ports, particularly those that are strategic to the UK economy, such as Southampton?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, particularly as he is one of the hon. Members who represent the great port of Southampton. My understanding is that the bid to which he refers has not yet been successful, but I recognise his wish to air the issues that surround it. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the House in the near future, but my hon. Friend, like others, might like to explore the possibility of putting a question to Ministers during Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions questions next Tuesday, or raising the matter in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Owen Paterson: I have the honour to serve on the Select Committee on Agriculture.

299
Today, I received a very disturbing letter from the National Sheep Association describing an abattoir in Eardisley which has a reputation second to none for quality, which gets premium prices for its products in France, and which has just lost a £6 million order for 150,000 lambs because the owners have decided to close it down. Despite the fact that, over the past two years, 16 vets have given it excellent health scores, a new vet appointed by the Meat Hygiene Service has dropped its scores, forcing it to close.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement to the House? Not only will the closure have a devastating effect on the sheep industry on the Welsh borders, but it exposes a fundamental flaw in the way in which the Food Standards Agency has been constituted in that it cannot act as an executive agency via the Meat Hygiene Service and as the policing agency for the industry.
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, although he will know, as he is a regular attender at these questions, that there is great concern about the operation of abattoirs and the Meat Hygiene Service. I fear that I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friends to make a special statement, but I feel confident that with a little ingenuity, and some good will from the Chair, the hon. Gentleman might manage to raise the matter during the debate on the common agricultural policy next week.
Mr. David Drew: Given that local elections are being held today, as well as Londonwide elections, would my right hon. Friend, after consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, consider arranging for a debate on council tax valuation? Certainly, there has been a live debate on the rights and wrongs of second home discounts, but I am more concerned about the possible need for revaluations of the bandings because park homes, which are also known as mobile homes, are valued at well below £40,000—the level at which council tax bandings start. A week ago, I visited the Berkeley Vale site in my constituency, so I know that the matter is a source of aggravation. Is it time for a proper, informed debate.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I cannot undertake to find time for a specific debate on the matter in the near future, nor can I say offhand whether he will find a slot in oral questions to DETR next week. However, a working group is looking at the precise issue that he raised, with regard to the concerns of those who own or rent mobile homes. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), can we please have an urgent debate on local government? Does the right hon. Lady accept that that would provide an excellent opportunity for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the leader of the Liberal Democrats to defend the fact that their parties in control of local councils charge respectively £124 and £79 a year more than Conservative authorities for band D council tax? Would it not also provide an admirable opportunity for my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge
300
Wells (Mr. Norman) to point out that precisely because Labour and Liberal Democrat authorities provide rotten services at rip off prices, people would be altogether wiser to vote Conservatives?
Mrs. Beckett: I am tempted by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should have a debate on local government, especially one focusing on council tax. For perfectly understandable reasons, Conservative Members are—and have always been—obsessed with one council tax band or another, although precisely which band preoccupies them changes according to what best suits their case.
My experience is that people do not give a damn about how the tax is calculated: what they care about is the amount that they pay. For some reason the hon. Gentleman did not think to mention the fact that people living in Labour areas pay the lowest average council taxes and have had the lowest average rise in council taxes.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) may not be as grateful to the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Gentleman imagines, as the council tax in Tory-controlled Tunbridge Wells has gone up by 7.5 per cent. compared with the average increase in Labour-controlled councils of 5.9 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will understand why I am tempted to grant his request, but I fear that I just cannot find the time.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on finding time for the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. All of us who are interested in animal welfare will be especially pleased with her announcement today. However, will she confirm that the Government will get the Bill through the House, even though certain Conservative Members seem prepared to go to any length to stop it?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has strongly supported the Bill for a long time, and I am grateful to him for his kind remarks. I assure him that, as we said on the previous occasion when the Bill should have been put before the House, the Government remain committed to making a change that is sought by the industry as well as by the general public.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on the current crisis arising from the mismanagement of our national foreign currency and precious metal reserves? She will know that we do not enjoy a strong pound, which has fallen from $1.68 to $1.55 over the past few months. However, we suffer from a very weak euro, which has fallen by 23 per cent. Why has Germany decided to increase the value of its reserves by buying gold, whereas Britain has decided to sell gold and buy weak, plummeting euros?
Mrs. Beckett: As the House is aware, decisions about the management of reserves are taken on the advice of the Bank of England. That advice has been followed in this case. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman's other remarks were more than a little off-message. He said that Britain does not enjoy a strong pound, but my understanding is that the Conservative party has been

301
talking about a sterling crisis because of the strong pound. I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to go back to his Whips and get a fresh briefing.
Shona McIsaac: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a written answer from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, dated 13 April, to a question from me about the case for compensation for distant-water trawlermen? The answer states:
The case for providing compensation for former distant-water trawlermen is being given urgent consideration and a decision is expected shortly.—[Official Report, 13 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 268W.]
That gives me a glimmer of hope, but the case has been going on for more than two decades. Will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to ensure that "urgent" means urgent, that "shortly" means shortly, and that a statement is made to the House on this most important issue while there are still some men left to compensate?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I know how strongly she has campaigned on this issue. She is right to identify the matter as one that has been around for decades rather than years. I am not in a position to deal with her request, but I shall certainly draw her remarks and concerns to the attention of the relevant Ministers, who I know will be anxious to deal with them if they can.
Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will know that the nature of the reporting of, and media commentary on, the trial of my constituent Tony Martin has done much to raise the fear of crime in rural areas. Local Conservatives have been eager to attack the Government, but their comments have undermined the police. Moreover, the Leader of the Opposition has stomped around the country making unhelpful comments which, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister noted yesterday, he does not repeat in the House. Does not my right hon. Friend think that the Government should hold a debate on law and order, so that those issues can be discussed in the House? I hope that on this occasion she does not refer me to Westminster Hall, as I have rarely seen the Leader of the Opposition there.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, both about the attitude and stance taken by the Leader of the Opposition and about the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not likely to be visible in Westminster Hall.
I share my hon. Friend's concern. Yesterday, the exchanges between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition offered a good and classic example of the shortsightedness and folly of the Leader of the Opposition, not only in the way in which he raises such issues but in his remark that he was prepared to see a change in mandatory life sentences—a legitimate point—but only in the context of self-defence. The right hon. Gentleman apparently overlooked not only the fact that Kenneth Noye was released by a Conservative Government, but that his defence, on both occasions when he appeared before the courts, was self-defence. All of that shows that it is wise to think more carefully about such matters than the Leader of the Opposition apparently does.

Defence in the World
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
1.1 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): This, the second of our three annual themed defence debates, follows our recent debate on defence personnel issues. During that debate, hon. Members noted the widespread deployment of our armed forces personnel. We have thousands of British service and civilian personnel deployed overseas—from the Falkland Islands to Kuwait; from Kosovo to Cyprus.
During the last year—as so consistently in the past—the performance of our armed forces has been exemplary. Whether supporting the police in Northern Ireland, delivering aid to Mozambique or keeping the peace in Indonesia and in the Balkans, they have made a real difference and have been a real force for good.
I am all too conscious of the demands we make of our service personnel and of the dangers that they face as a result. In that context, I regret to have to confirm to the House that one of the unarmed United Nations military observers detained by rebel forces in Sierra Leone is a British officer. We understand that he is safe and well; his next of kin have been informed. No other British citizens have been detained. Negotiations are taking place on the political and diplomatic fronts to secure the safe release of all those detained. I am sure that the House will understand why I cannot give more details at present.
The House has rightly paid fulsome tribute to the dedication and professionalism of our service men and women, and of our civil servants who support them. I am sure that no one will object if I repeat my appreciation of the quality of our personnel and of the exemplary work they do.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I apologise for not being in the Chamber when the Secretary of State began his speech; the previous business was completed more quickly than I had anticipated.
As the right hon. Gentleman will understand, it is sometimes thought that deployments with the UN are almost an easy life. However, what he has just told the House makes it clear that they are often extremely difficult and dangerous. I associate myself with the appreciation that he has expressed on behalf of the Government, and hope that the person who has been apprehended will be released speedily.
Mr. Hoon: I am most grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations. Events in Sierra Leone emphasise the point that such operations must be approached with maximum care—they involve the full range of skills of our armed forces. We are working at every level to secure the officer's release.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): As the Secretary of State is aware, the history of the Sierra Leone affair is lengthy and difficult. In the light of this disaster—seven peacekeepers were killed yesterday—does he think that it might have been better to have paid more attention to what Peter Penfold and President Kabbah appeared to want to do? They wanted to employ—dare one say?—

303
mercenary forces to put down the rebels in the first place. The UN operation does not seem to have worked too well; it appears that the elected president at the time was keen to employ Sandline.
Mr. Hoon: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, until very recently the operation in Sierra Leone had been remarkably successful and was achieving results. Certainly, there have been difficulties recently which the international community is seeking to address. I am not sure that his suggestion would necessarily have helped to improve the situation.
Our previous debate was about how personnel are deployed and managed. This debate is about why they are so deployed, why our armed forces are spread across the globe and why they are so actively engaged in the modern world. In each and every case, there are strong and specific reasons for the deployment of British forces. Indeed, it is a measure of the quality of our forces that they are able to operate as successfully as they do in circumstances where the political environment is often fluid and complicated.
However, the underlying reasons for the deployment of our forces are usually quite straightforward. As a member of the United Nations Security Council, as a leading member of NATO, the European Union and the Commonwealth and as a comparatively wealthy nation that depends on free trade, Britain has clear responsibilities for, and interests in, peace and stability. The practical imperative is clear: our prosperity depends on trade and on peace and stability, so preserving a peaceful, stable world is clearly in our immediate interests. The United Kingdom is fortunate that it does not at present face a military threat. Home defence is not an issue in the same way that it was for much of the last century. It would take some considerable time for a direct conventional military threat to the United Kingdom, or to western Europe as a whole, to re-emerge. I am pleased to be able to say that we see no sign of such a re-emergence, although we must retain the ability to reorganise our forces should that change. For the moment, Britain is fortunate to occupy a peaceful corner of an otherwise troubled world.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Although the immediate environment around the United Kingdom may appear to be peaceful, things can change rapidly. In an era of expeditionary warfare, our armed forces need to be properly equipped and, above all, to have air superiority to be able to conduct any operations. In that regard, is it not imperative that the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft be equipped with a gun as a standard fitting and that the gun is not simply bolted on as and when the circumstance requires?
Mr. Hoon: It is important that our forces are equipped to face the types of battles that they will face in the future. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has relied on rather antiquated newspaper reports about the benefits of cannon in second world war dogfights. It is highly unlikely that aeroplanes as sophisticated as the Typhoon would be engaged in such contacts. Indeed, if they are engaged in a direct conflict with another aircraft, they will be equipped with very sophisticated missiles that will be the effective means by which they are successful.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that all modern air operations—from Vietnam to
304
those in the middle east, particularly involving the Israeli air force—have demonstrated that the secondary armament of cannon is most important and that a residual dogfighting capability is necessary? Can he therefore quash rumours in the press that the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft will be equipped only with air-to-air missiles? If he does not, there will be grave disquiet in informed circles.
Mr. Hoon: I have suggested that we assess the armaments that are required on a sophisticated aircraft according to the nature of the threat that it will face. In the modern world, to defeat an attack by an aircraft on equipment such as the Typhoon, the appropriate armament is a sophisticated air-to-air missile.
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith rose—
Mr. Hoon: Notwithstanding the obvious impatience of Members, I cannot answer the precise question as to which missile will be made available to the Typhoon. However, I assure the House that there will be one.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I had not planned to intervene at this stage. However, as we are discussing this subject, it is perhaps a good point at which to clear the air. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the reports, will the Secretary of State undertake to reconsider the issue? As I understand it, the even more advanced F22 is designed with a cannon, which every air force that I am aware of considers to be a necessary part of its inventory. Unless the Royal Air Force is aware of a secret change to the threat, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter so that the issue does not rebound over the next few weeks in different reports in different newspapers?
Mr. Hoon: It would not rebound in different reports in different newspapers if there were sensible observation and comment on it. We keep these matters under constant review. We always ensure that our equipment is the best and that it is designed to deal with the sorts of threat that our armed forces face. We shall carefully examine the appropriate requirement.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way. As he is talking about damaging and debilitating comment, can he dissociate himself from comments that are apparently attributed to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who appears to be approaching the issue of the choice of missile entirely from the point of view of economics, and not from that of capability?
Mr. Hoon: One of the things that I have learned in government is that I do not believe everything that I read in The Guardian. I would encourage the right hon. and learned Gentleman to follow my habit.
Mr. Ian Davidson: May I pursue the point about damaging press comment? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the damage that has been caused in Scotland by the unfortunate comment from the Ministry of Defence that no British shipbuilding yard is capable of

305
building roll on/roll off ferries? That comment was not helpful and was presumably designed deliberately to undermine the United Kingdom offerings. Will my right hon. Friend make a clear statement that he believes that Govan Shipbuilders Ltd. on the Clyde is capable of building those ships?
Mr. Hoon: I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend that that is the position that the Ministry of Defence has adopted. There is no doubt about the capability of shipyards throughout the country to construct roll on/roll off ferries and to engage in the sophisticated programme of building about 30 warships that we are planning in future years. I shall be looking to British shipyards to supply ships to fulfil that exciting forward programme. I am confident that shipyards throughout the United Kingdom will benefit from the programme.
As I was saying, we benefit from stable democracy, good government and strong economic development. It is in our interest to see that stability established more widely. We also have a wider responsibility to those in less fortunate circumstances to help secure peace, stability and democracy, and to ensure, wherever we are able, the furtherance of basic human rights. There are many ways of doing that other than by resorting to military force. Diplomacy, aid and advice are crucial. Military action may ultimately be required. However, the military has an important role to play long before we reach the point where armed force becomes necessary.
A great deal of effort is put into what my predecessor termed "defence diplomacy". That is using our defence assets to build and promote stability and democracy by providing training, education and advice. That is an excellent example of the Government's approach. We are using our defence resources actively and with imagination to make long-term investments in peace and stability. We have provided additional funding to reflect the importance that we attach to these tasks. However, defence diplomacy can work effectively only in the process of joined-up government. The Ministry of Defence continues to work closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development to this end.
Success in this area is often unspectacular—successful diplomacy is often the story of the dog that did not bark. The measure of our success will largely be conflicts that did not happen and trouble that did not occur. However, we should not forget the positive aspects of defence diplomacy: increasing respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Sometimes, unfortunately, diplomacy fails. Our commitment to the maintenance of civilised conduct in world affairs is put to the sternest test—our willingness and readiness to use military force.
No one should doubt the Government's determination to do what is necessary in times of crisis. This year, we plan to spend about £22.8 billion on defence. By any measure, that is a significant sum. We are spending every pound for a good reason. We are determined that Britain should have world-class armed forces with a mix of capabilities that allow us to be engaged and active on the world stage. These are armed forces that are capable of
306
deploying and sustaining themselves over long distances and capable, should the need arise, of war fighting at the most demanding level.
Mr. Quentin Davies: The Secretary of State says that he plans to spend £22.8 billion on defence. However, that budget will not cover his existing commitments, so he has had to cancel exercises and the cannon on the Typhoon. He has had to hold up procurement programmes and leave the Army without crucial spares, but it is still more than 8.000 service men and women below strength. Would he not be in more serious financial straits if he had those 8,000-plus troops?
Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with some of those points in due course. However, let me make clear to the House and the hon. Gentleman that we have no difficulty in fulfilling our commitments in a challenging programme. Previous Governments have always faced the fact that judgments about commitments have to be made, consistent with the amount of money that a country can afford at any given point in its history. That is always the case and, in the unlikely event of the hon. Gentleman occupying my position, he will have to face up to that with rather more sophistication than simply talking about needing more money or cutting commitments. Perhaps Opposition Members will explain what commitments they would cut, if that is how they would resolve the problem.
I shall shortly talk about our commitment to ensuring that Britain's forces are a force for good around the world.
Mr. Robathan: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned defence commitments that we have trouble in fulfilling, and defence diplomacy. Given the situation in Zimbabwe, does he not think that having British soldiers run training schemes there probably sends the wrong message to the Government and people of Zimbabwe?
Mr. Hoon: It does not. British forces are present in Zimbabwe as part of a training force for southern Africa. Their responsibilities extend beyond Zimbabwe, where they have conducted sophisticated training that has benefited the Zimbabwean armed forces. If the hon. Gentleman has followed the situation in Zimbabwe carefully, he will know that the armed forces have continued to make a stable and mature contribution to Zimbabwean society, which may well have something to do with the training that they have received from British forces. There is therefore good news from Zimbabwe, and it is important to put that in the right context.
Ms Rachel Squire: Given the points that my right hon. Friend has just made, will he join me in welcoming the establishment of a defence diplomacy scholarship scheme at Shrivenham, which seeks directly to influence the conduct of civilian and military personnel worldwide in peacekeeping and other operations?
Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. That is precisely the kind of example of defence diplomacy that I was describing. From their time in office, Opposition Members will know that young men or women who come to the United Kingdom on such scholarships tend to give their country of origin the benefit of experience that they have gained here, and do so throughout their service

307
career and sometimes beyond, into government. There are several examples of people who have taken advantage of such scholarships and ended up in prominent positions in their own countries. Those scholarships therefore have long-term benefits. I accept that it is sometimes difficult to define the tangible benefits of such schemes but, in the long term, they bring enormous advantages to the United Kingdom.
The Government are committed to the modernisation of our forces and to ensuring that they are structured and equipped to perform the most demanding tasks. In addition to the strategic defence review restructuring, we have embarked on a substantial programme of re-equipment and modernisation, representing a huge investment in our forces. Every year, we spend some £10 billion on equipment, yet some people still accuse us of looking for defence on the cheap. Let me make it clear that that is nonsense. Certainly, we want to be efficient and make every pound spent on defence count. However, we do not and will not compromise on the equipment with which we provide our forces. It is world-beating and will remain so.
As evidence of that, we are in the process of fitting all our attack submarines with the tactical land attack cruise missile, the TLAM, which was used to great effect during the Kosovo campaign. It is the envy of almost every other navy in the world; currently, only the Americans have it. We will have an enhanced stand-off precision-strike capability in Storm Shadow, an air-launched cruise missile. Only a few weeks ago, I attended the roll-out of the first Apache attack helicopter for the Army. We recently signed a contract worth about £60 million to provide more than 100 new all-terrain vehicles for 3 Commando Brigade.
We are undertaking major programmes to modernise existing equipment. Both the air defence and the ground attack variants of the Tornado are being improved. In the longer term, we have a collection of major programmes, such as Eurofighter, the future offensive air system, the future carrier-borne aircraft, two new aircraft carriers, the Astute class of nuclear-powered attack submarine, the type 45 destroyer, the future strategic tanker aircraft and the airborne stand-off radar. Those will all result in significant enhancements to the capabilities and utility of our forces.
Nevertheless, looking ahead must not distract us from the capability of our forces today. They operate with world-class equipment. For example, the Army has recently deployed to Kosovo with the Challenger 2 tank, which represents a quantum leap in standards of performance and reliability. At the other extreme, the clothing of our deployed soldiers is better than it has ever been. That is not just my view: it is the view of men and women in our armed forces with whom I have spoken.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the Challenger 2, may I say first that I did my national service with the regiment that now operates the tank, and I have been told that it is extremely effective? That is good news.
My right hon. Friend is a careful and scholarly lawyer, so he might not care to comment on an issue arising in connection with Kosovo, but I should like to draw his attention to the article in The Sunday Times of 16 April, which appeared under the byline of Lois Rogers, "Ailing troops sue over Balkan war syndrome". At some point in
308
the debate, may we have an answer stating what action the Ministry of Defence is taking? I understand that soldiers who served in former Yugoslavia plan to sue the Ministry after suffering chronic health problems, which they believe are caused by Balkan war syndrome. The case involves 12 people, 11 of whom are serving service men.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about the Challenger tank, and I look forward to discussing with him the details of his national service, because I can, no doubt, learn a lot from him in that respect.
On the issue of the newspaper accounts that appeared on or around 16 April, I have to say that I have read only those accounts, nothing more. My Department will consider carefully the legal submissions made to us, and we shall respond with a course of legal action, should we judge that to be necessary. I am sure my hon. Friend understands why I do not wish to comment further at this time.
Mr. Dalyell: Of course. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hoon: All Governments experience problems with the range of equipment used in the course of fulfilling their defence responsibilities. We have acknowledged those problems and, where we can, are taking decisive early action to solve them. For example, the difficulties of the SA80 rifle have been well documented, but we are taking action to address them.
However, the problems need to be kept in perspective. Let us take as an example the recent media stories about the Lynx rotorhead. Yes, there is a safety problem and, yes, it affected the availability of the aircraft—but it has not stopped us meeting key operational tasks. For example, only last week, HMS Manchester's Lynx operating in the Caribbean helped local police to locate drugs on Montserrat. The aircraft are still flying and still fulfilling their operational responsibilities.
Too often overlooked is the fact that, day in, day out, our forces are properly equipped to do the job they are required to do. The Government would never settle for anything less. We are, naturally, aware of the costs: building and sustaining world-class armed forces is an expensive business that requires sustained and significant investment over the long term. That is what the Government are engaged in. Defence is not an activity in which we can afford to cut corners.
As was so eloquently described by right hon. and hon. Members during last month's debate, there is a human cost as well. Being engaged, as we are, on the world stage asks a great deal of our armed forces and of their families. We have faced problems with overstretch. Last July, some 47 per cent. of the trained Army was preparing for, on, or recovering from operations. Such a level of commitment takes its toll on the personal lives of the armed forces and of their families. We were determined to do something about overstretch, and as a result the figure is now about 27 per cent.—lower than that which we inherited in 1997.
We have achieved this reduction in overstretch by reducing commitments where we sensibly can, and by thinking imaginatively about how we manage the commitments that remain. As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces told the House last month, we have

309
awarded a £20 million contract for the installation of a new telecommunications network, which will free 260 Royal Signallers from their Balkans commitment by the end of this year.
There is more we can do—and are doing—to reduce or ameliorate the pressures on our personnel and their families. For example, for the first time in 50 years, we are planning to increase the size of the Army by more than 3,000 posts, but we will not opt out of playing our part internationally. Our resolution has been demonstrated during the past 12 months when we have deployed, often at very short notice, to places such as East Timor and Mozambique.
In East Timor last September, we contributed almost 300 personnel to the United Nations-backed international force, deployed in response to growing concerns about the humanitarian situation there. In Mozambique, RAF Puma helicopters and Royal Navy Sea King helicopters operating from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Fort George delivered almost 1,000 tonnes of humanitarian supplies after devastating flooding in that country. At the same time, we have maintained a significant presence in the Balkans.
It is hardly surprising that events in the Balkans have been prominent. This time last year, we were engaged with our NATO allies in a remarkable contest of will with Milosevic. It was a resounding success. Our convictions were shared by our NATO allies and by many other countries. What we did was necessary and it was right. To have successfully returned hundreds of thousands of refugees to their homes and to be rebuilding the society in which they live is a magnificent achievement, and one of which we can justly be proud. This is what our defence and security policy means in practice: making the world a better and a safer place.
The situation in the Balkans is by no means resolved, but we should not underestimate the real success of the international community in changing things for the better. Dealing with such deep-seated problems as exist in the region will never be easy, but we are now seeing significant progress.
Mr. Dalyell: There is the problem of 280,000 Serbs who are now refugees from Kosovo. That is the figure given by the UN agencies; the Serbian Government figure is 350,000. It is a human tragedy.
Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent: the primary purpose of our activity in Kosovo was to preserve the possibility of a multi-ethnic society. We are determined to create such a society in Kosovo, in which it is safe equally for Serbs, Roma, Albanians and other ethnic groups in the province.
The changes in Croatia are a good illustration of what can be achieved by the combination of democratic forces within a state, and a co-ordinated approach from the international community. Croatia's election results were a clear example of the rejection of ethnically based policies by the Croatian people. In Bosnia, the recent municipal elections were notable not just for the lack of violence, but for the continuing decline of extremist ethnically based parties. Progress there is not as rapid as in Croatia, but it is encouraging none the less.
310
In Bosnia our troops are continuing to do a vital job in fostering the conditions for democracy and the return of refugees to their homes. There is no doubt that that is a success story. Those who predict failure for our efforts in Kosovo should take note.
The 6,000 or so personnel whom we have committed to the Balkans region as a whole are a tangible measure of the depth and seriousness of that commitment. Our personnel are making real improvements to the everyday lives of people in the region and to the prospects for long-term peace, stability, democracy and economic revival. We should not, nor will we, walk away from those commitments.
The recent history of the Balkans could be characterised as the aftershocks of events that happened more than a decade ago. They are a painful reminder that the post-cold war world moves on, and moves on apace. Our defence policies must respond to those changes.
We have entered a period of uncertainty, rapid change and increasingly diverse challenges. The world is increasingly multi-polar, with new and shifting centres of power and alliance. Where, in the past, internal divisions or dissent have been suppressed by autocratic rule, violent disorder can flare when central control weakens, as happened in the Congo, yet we can hope that in some cases such instability represents a period of transition to new, more liberal and more stable regimes.
However, there remain many fundamental underlying causes of conflict in the world. Exclusion—political or economic—has been at the root of many recent internal conflicts, as in Algeria and the great lakes region of Africa. Ineffective or corrupt government increases the risks of instability. When combined with various demographic and environmental trends those factors are likely to generate increasing instability and strife in many regions. Almost by definition they are likely to be regions that are least able to help themselves. In such circumstances it would be sensible to expect increasing calls on international bodies to manage crises and prevent human suffering.
Our direct national interests will not often be at stake in such crises—there will be no immediate practical imperative to become involved—but we must face the fact that, in an increasingly interdependent world, ultimately our political, humanitarian or financial interests can be affected. Coupled with the political and moral expectations of western electorates, we will see continued, if not increasing, involvement in coalition peace support operations. Today, both our freedom to act and the expectations and pressures on us to do so, quickly and decisively, are greater than ever.
We shall be acting in an environment where we will face novel and unexpected operational challenges; a world where the threats that we may face cannot always be measured in conventional terms.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I remind my right hon. Friend that, much closer to home, many thousands of troops are still stationed in Northern Ireland, which is entirely understandable given the serious security threats posed by Continuity IRA and Real IRA, as well as loyalist paramilitaries? My right hon. Friend is actively engaged with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in looking at reducing numbers where it is at all possible. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend,

311
as I have done to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that the military lookout tower in the square at Crossmaglen, known locally as a crow's nest, should come down? It serves no useful purpose, other than helping with the recruitment to those dissident IRA groups.
Mr. Hoon: We look carefully at our commitments in Northern Ireland. We were able to make some reductions last year, but any decision about any kind of installation in Northern Ireland is entirely dependent on the security situation on the ground. On that, we receive advice from the Chief Constable and from the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland, and, where we can, we act upon it. The Government are determined to pursue a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland because it will allow us to reduce our military commitment there, which will allow a normalisation of the situation in that part of the world.
One area that we are watching with great care is the development and proliferation of so-called weapons of mass destruction, and their means of delivery. Some states will continue to seek to acquire these weapons—in the face of international condemnation—to try to threaten and coerce their neighbours and the international community as a whole. The relative cheapness and simplicity of biological and chemical weapons can make them a tempting proposition and result in regional arms races.
Those are threats that all NATO allies—indeed all responsible states—must address. NATO has collectively taken up the challenge with its weapons of mass destruction initiative, launched in Washington last year. Last year, also, we published a paper that set out how the UK addresses the threat from biological and chemical weapons.
What we said in that paper remains true. The Government will go on working to strengthen the clear international consensus that possession of biological and chemical weapons is wrong. We strongly support measures to prevent their proliferation. We are committed to improving the effectiveness of the relevant conventions and export control regimes. We wish to see the completion of negotiations to strengthen the biological and toxin weapons convention before the review conference in 2001.
For as long as those weapons remain a threat we must be prepared to defend against them. We, and NATO as a whole, are committed to ensuring that our deployed forces are appropriately equipped, trained and organised to overcome the challenges that they might face. Those measures contribute to our efforts to deter potential proliferators, by persuading them that they will not gain advantage by acquiring or threatening to use weapons that the international community has renounced.
We understand the United States concern about the threat posed by ballistic missile proliferation, and we have been in close contact about the role that it envisages for national missile defence in its response to the threat.
The US recognises that NMD poses difficult and complex issues. Several key factors need to be addressed before it decides whether to proceed with deployment. They include the views of NATO allies, and the need to preserve strategic stability and the viability of international treaties. We welcome the fact that the US is taking those factors into account.
312
The question of any amendment to the anti-ballistic missile treaty to accommodate NMD is strictly a matter for the US and Russia, as parties to the treaty. However, we have made it clear to them that we continue to value the strategic stability that the treaty provides. We want to see it preserved. We welcome the intensive discussions that are now in progress between the parties. We believe that they can ultimately reach a successful conclusion. The United Kingdom wants international debate on the issue to be conducted in a calm, considered manner, whereby concerns can be properly aired and addressed.
Much has been written lately about possible sites in the UK as part of the proposed NMD system. Let us be clear: the US is considering only a limited system and it has not yet finally decided to proceed even with that. We are in close touch with the US on all aspects of its proposals. However, reports that we have agreed to host elements of the system are wrong. We have not decided because we have not been asked. If we receive a request, we will of course consider it very carefully.
I would like to make clear our position on ballistic missile defence. Our national programme of work, and feasibility studies shortly to be started in NATO, will enable us to continue to make informed judgments on whether to invest in such capabilities in future.
It is important to remember that there are four elements to our response against proliferation: arms control, preventing supply, deterring use and defending against use. In the immediate focus on NMD, we must not lose sight of the importance to all responsible states of continuing to pursue with vigour a comprehensive response to the threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and their means of delivery.
That proliferation is a further example of the widespread changes in the strategic scene in recent years. The need to adapt to this changing world was at the centre of our strategic defence review. We identified a need to create more flexible, more capable and more deployable forces. That is exactly what we are doing.
Progress in implementing the review's conclusions has been excellent. We have already implemented many of the key decisions. They include establishing a pool of joint rapid reaction forces, forming the Joint Helicopter Command and Joint Force Harrier and establishing 16 Air Assault Brigade. Those are exactly the sort of capable, flexible, deployable forces that we have identified as vital to the future of defence.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Two points arise from the Secretary of State's comments on ballistic missile defence. First, will he confirm whether there is a shift in Government policy from that which his predecessor espoused? His comments imply that.
Secondly, the Secretary of State mentioned the four elements of reaction to proliferation. In the past two or three months, evidence has suggested that, despite sanctions, Iraq is close to being capable of producing a missile and a weapon of mass destruction. Does not that make it much more important—if not urgent—for the Government to make their position on ballistic missile defence clear? Otherwise Iraq will not feel deterred from going ahead.
Mr. Hoon: I expressed the Government's anxieties about proliferation and acknowledged that the US is right

313
to want to defend itself in the way that it proposes. However, it has not yet made a decision. There has been no shift in the Government's position. An evolution of thinking in response to the issues is inevitable. It is taking place in the US as well as in the United Kingdom and among NATO allies. It is important to conduct a calm and measured debate. We welcome the fact that, since last year, the US has involved NATO allies in evolving the thinking on difficult and potentially dangerous matters. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and assure him that the Government will respond appropriately when and if the US decides to deploy national missile defence.
Mr. Wilkinson: The Secretary of State is making some significant statements. If the United States were to procure a system to deploy a national ballistic missile defence, would not it be remiss of the United Kingdom not to participate jointly in such a system because it would be a cost-effective option that would have operational as well as economic benefits?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman, understandably, invites me to travel much further down the road than it is necessary to go now. As I have said, we are in close contact with the United States. As its thinking evolves and as ours matures and develops, we shall perhaps have to address such matters, but we do not have to do so today. Unless and until the US decides to deploy even a limited national missile defence, there would be no great value in considering those issues, although I am sure that appropriate think tanks will welcome his thoughts on the subject.
We in the United Kingdom have taken great strides to ensure that the support provided to those forces will be the best we can provide. The new Defence Logistics Organisation will ensure that. Smart procurement is already showing how it can achieve significant reductions in the costs and time involved in bringing equipment into service, such as £200 million off the lifetime cost of the Challenger 2 tank and up to five years knocked off the time between main approval and the in-service date for the future offensive air system, which will provide a day and night long-range offensive air capability to replace that currently provided by the Tornado GR4.
We are leading the way among NATO and European nations in rebuilding and restructuring our forces for the operations that we expect to face in future. We cannot afford to be alone in that restructuring. Future operations are almost certain to be conducted in coalition with our allies and partners. Such operations will not succeed if they have not also restructured their forces. It is right that Europe should occupy a significant place on the international stage that reflects the continent's political and economic weight. However, a place at the top table brings obligations and responsibilities. In terms of its military capability, Europe is simply not up to the job in certain key areas.
The debate on European security and defence was launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about 18 months ago. The Kosovo crisis threw into sharp relief the gaps in European capability and gave added impetus to NATO's defence capabilities initiative. It is only right that Britain should have taken a leading part in
314
developing that work. The European defence initiative will ensure that, collectively, Europe's armed forces are capable of meeting their responsibilities. From the start, we have focused on the practicalities of improving Europe's military capability so that we can better contribute to NATO and are able to take effective action when NATO as a whole is not engaged.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I apologise for not being present for the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Will he tell us what practical steps he is taking to encourage those capabilities, given that European defence spending is decreasing? How can the Germans increase their capability, which needs to be dramatically increased, if they are cutting their defence budget?
Mr. Hoon: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is here. I was concerned that he would miss not only the beginning of my speech, but most of it.
Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend was having lunch.
Mr. Hoon: That is a wholly plausible excuse.
The specific answer is that we have concentrated on the capabilities because too many European nations are still organised to face the threat from the Soviet Union—a threat that fortunately no longer exists. We are emphasising the need to reorganise those forces along expeditionary lines, as we have advocated in the strategic defence review, so that they can rapidly enter the field. That is precisely why, at the Helsinki European Council last December, all EU leaders committed themselves to meet a challenging target for collective capability. That headline goal requires EU member states to be able, by 2003, to deploy rapidly and sustain up to 60,000 troops, capable of undertaking the most demanding crisis management tasks.
Meeting that goal means improving Europe's armed forces so that we are better able to assemble, deploy and sustain the right mix of forces for specific NATO or EU-led operations. That is about real world capability; it is not institutional tinkering and certainly not a matter of creating a European army. We in the United Kingdom will continue to give a lead.
Mr. Robathan: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way: he has been particularly generous in doing so.
I have here a quotation from Mr. Prodi, President of the European Commission. In February, following the Helsinki summit, he told The Independent:
When I was talking about the European Army I was not joking. If you don't want to call it a European Army, don't call it a European Army.
Mr. Prodi said that he was not joking. He means a European army.
Mr. Hoon: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows enough about the institutional structure of the European Union to be aware that Mr. Prodi—I assume that it is the same Mr. Prodi—is a European Commissioner, and, as such, will have no responsibility for the arrangements that we propose. Those arrangements will be dealt with in an intergovernmental context. Like any other European

315
citizen, Mr. Prodi is entitled to his point of view, but it will not reflect the decisions that European Governments are making.
We want the European Union to draw on detailed technical support from NATO, while retaining political control of the process. That will avoid the establishment of wasteful duplicate planning systems.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Can we return to the question of whether there is any chance that the Helsinki commitments will be met? Is the right hon. Gentleman using every opportunity to try to persuade his European Union colleagues to increase their defence budgets, or is he not?
Mr. Hoon: As I have said, getting a force of between 50,000 and 60,000 into the field quickly is not strictly about the size of the budget; it is about reorganising existing spending. It ought to be possible for the United Kingdom to deliver a force of that size to a theatre pretty quickly, but other countries ought to have the same capability. The aim of the headline goal is to make them concentrate on that, and they all agreed to it. Our immediate task is to expand the headline goal into a detailed list of the required forces and capabilities. That will provide a sound baseline, enabling us to identify national contributions and to highlight overall shortfalls later this year. The work is going ahead, in a detailed and practical way.
Work to implement the headline goal can only help the implementation of NATO's defence capabilities initiative. It will strengthen Europe and, in so doing, will strengthen NATO. As European nations are better able to bear their share of the alliance burden, our relationship with the United States will be strengthened.
Last year, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Atlantic alliance. Around that time, many predicted that the celebration would become a funeral wake, and that the alliance would break apart under the pressures of the Kosovo crisis. They were wrong: the alliance emerged strengthened, having demonstrated a remarkable ability to pursue a common purpose in difficult circumstances.
NATO, however, is not the organisation that it was 50, 20 or even 10 years ago. "Adapt or die" may be an over-dramatic clichébut there is a truth in it. With its new command structure, its force structure review, the defence capabilities initiative and a series of other changes, NATO has adapted effectively. Meanwhile, we in the United Kingdom are adapting to face the challenges of the new century. Practical experience over the past 12 months has shown that, like the alliance of which we are a part, we have made a sound and effective start. There is still some distance to go, but I believe that we have the right plans for making the changes we must make. I also believe that we are doing all that we reasonably can to ensure that we, and Europe, will be able to respond to the challenges that we can be sure will face us in future years.
1.49 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I join the Secretary of State in paying fulsome tribute to the members of our armed forces—regulars, territorials and the reserves—who play such a significant part in the capability, and the delivery of that capability, of which we are all justly proud. I also agree with what
316
the Secretary of State said about the unarmed service man who has been taken hostage in Sierra Leone. That is a timely reminder—as if we needed it—that members of our armed services are serving all over the world, and, in many areas, are serving in dangerous environments. I pay tribute to them. I hope that the service man will be released very soon and that his family will accept our hopes on their behalf.
As we take part in this critical debate, and with the debate raging about Zimbabwe, I am reminded of my time in our armed forces in Zimbabwe a number of years ago, when we took what was then Rhodesia through to independence as Zimbabwe. I watched then the way in which members of our armed forces behaved. It was an eye-opener, even though I was serving at the time.
For example, I watched, right out in the bush, penny packets of six or seven men, ordinary privates, with corporals or perhaps even sergeants, bringing in thousands of war-tested guerrillas, who had hated and were killing whites—regardless of their political opinions at that stage—with tensions running high. Individual members took decisions to lay down their rifles—their only protection, or so it may have appeared—to go out and to shake the hands of those people as they came in, which restored their confidence in our forces and in the forces generally. They were not following an edict or command from generals, colonels or commanding officers. Those ordinary soldiers took that initiative. I know of no other armed force in the world that can rely to such a degree on the initiative and capability of its members. I pay fulsome tribute as a result.
That brings one matter into sharp relief, and I must touch on it, although I do not intend to spend a lot of time on it. Why are we having the debate today? It is such an important debate. The Secretary of State is right to say that we owe so much to our armed forces; we do. Why, then, are we having the debate on a day when the country is clearly and rightly obsessed with what is happening in local areas and when hon. Members have priorities elsewhere? Many have said to me that they are upset about not being able to attend the debate. The Select Committee on Defence has, I understand, even supported an early-day motion to that effect.
I make simply the following point—I do not intend to debate the matter: will the Secretary of State please bring that to the attention of his colleagues in the usual channels and say to them, "Next time, defence deserves a better slot"? We do not get too many opportunities. For his sake, as much as for ours, the House deserves to have such a debate at a proper time.
The Secretary of State was right to talk about defence in the world in the light of the strategic defence review, because so much of what we do or do not do stems from what happened in that review. The Government were keen to stress that the review would be foreign policy-led. I was sorry to see the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), leave just now. I wanted to raise some questions with him, but no doubt we will be able to pursue those matters at a later date. It appears that during the review—I accept that the Secretary of State was not in his current post at the time—there was an absence of any foreign policy discussion and analysis; at least none was published or made available.

317
In its report on the SDR, the Defence Committee complained:
the government's manifesto promised a "strategic defence and security review" … we are still awaiting the strategic security review. In a sense we have received a two-dimensional review of a three-dimensional world.
The Committee's criticism was well founded because that foreign policy analysis is critical for us to understand not what we will always be doing in future, but what it is likely that we will be called upon to do.
For example, less than a year after the end of the review, the crises in Kosovo, in East Timor and in other areas, but particularly in those two, had erupted. They were not necessarily predicted. It is important to know what foreign policy input there was during the review on such dangers and difficulties. It is the commitments that flowed from the review which have created so many overstretch problems for our armed forces. The Secretary of State spoke about that. The failure to conduct such a wide-ranging foreign policy review has caused a huge problem for the armed forces.
Nevertheless, parts of the strategic defence review are welcome. Since becoming Opposition defence spokesman, I have made it clear that in the previous Parliament I was one of those who thought that, rather than simply considering our defence objectives in a piecemeal manner, we should have a foreign policy-led review. I make no bones about my position on the issue of such a review, on which there was disagreement on both sides of the House. It was right to have a review, and some of its aspects are welcome.
I particularly welcome the review's treatment of matters such as a joint command. It was absolutely right to deal with such matters, many of which were based on plans developed by the previous Government. It is right that such plans have been brought to fruition. It was also right to develop the concept of power projection, which entails having the capability to go to the parts of the world that pose threats to our interests or to those of our allies. The Opposition welcome without reservation such a capability.
Nevertheless, the SDR also contained some fundamental flaws. In the past two years, it is the review's flaws that have become most apparent. The review, despite its seemingly good intentions, was Treasury driven and, therefore, became a cost-cutting exercise. The Ministry of Defence had to dress it up as a strategic exercise, rather than admitting that it was a process of saving yet more money.
As I said, the result has been to create a problem of overstretch and a crisis of retention. In recent debates, the Opposition have outlined the very damaging consequences to our armed forces caused by the savage cuts made to the defence Budget since 1997.
I should like to focus on two elements of the strategic defence review: omissions and mistakes in strategic planning, and the issue of whether our equipment and personnel capabilities are sufficient to fulfil our real overall requirements.
Mr. Davidson: In his exposition, will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he is committing the
318
Opposition to spending more on defence or—to reduce overstretch—to reducing commitments? Will he give us a clear and unequivocal reply on both those points?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I have always been absolutely clear on those points. Our position is that unless it is possible to reduce our commitments to a sustainable level, we shall of course have to increase capability.
If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go even further than that, I would simply remind him that the Government have been in power for three years, and tell him—unless he is about to tell me that there will be a general election in the next few months—that I cannot judge yet whether the Government have succeeded or failed in achieving their objective of reducing commitments. I also cannot determine yet how their failure to achieve that objective might impinge on costs. He should, however, mark my words: in the next few months, and before the next general election, the Opposition will produce a series of proposals dealing in detail with the points that he has raised.
The key issue is whether the Government have given up on the idea of reducing commitments to a level commensurate with capability, or believe that they can maintain both current commitments and current capability. I shall demonstrate that they cannot do the latter.
Ms Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—[Interruption.] I apologise; I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I always manage to get that wrong.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, from the mid-1980s onwards, the previous Government cut defence expenditure by one third? Does he also agree that there was a one-third cut in Army personnel, and that that was one of the major factors in the armed forces personnel shortage that the present Government inherited and have committed themselves to tackling?
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Government have been intent on saying that Conservative Members have lurched to the right. However, as the hon. Lady has called me her hon. Friend, I am worried that we may have lurched so far to the left that our position will be untenable. Labour Members cannot have it both ways on that score.
Seriously, however, the hon. Lady maintains that defence budget reductions have created the problem. If that were so, why would she agree with the Government that a further £800 million annual cut will solve the very problem to which she referred? What effect does she think that will have on the families in her constituency who have members serving in the armed forces? It is no good the Government turning round after three years and saying, "We are in a mess, but it is still not our fault, and we are making it worse by making a bigger cut in the defence forces." It makes no logical sense. I wish that they would pack it up and get on with debating what their policy is really about.
Mr. Tom King: I was the person involved in making the adjustments to our armed forces at the end of the cold war. My hon. Friend dealt adequately with the childish point that has just been made, but it is worth remembering that during the time of those adjustments, we were assailed by the Labour party to make more cuts.
Mr. Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One other point that is worth making—I was not

319
going to mention it, but I will now—is that at the previous election the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) will recall that the then Conservative Government pledged no further reductions in the defence budget. We said that there would be a period of stability so that we could assess the effect of the changes before deciding, finally, whether we had gone too far. That is the most powerful argument against the hon. Lady's point.
I want to begin the strategic aspect of my speech by talking about ballistic missile defence. Interestingly, the Secretary of State centred a large part of his speech on that and it is important to pick him up on it. He talked, rightly, about the problem of proliferation and about the Government's position. I must take him back to the SDR. Part of the problem was the SDR's complete lack of recognition of the nature of the threat, which was already being recognised across the Atlantic. When I read the SDR, I was amazed that it shied away from discussing, other than in a very small way, the effect of such proliferation continuing at the same rate.
All that flew in the face of available information which led the Rumsfeld commission in the Senate to indicate that the United States, at least, would face a direct threat from North Korea and Iran within five years. I remind the Secretary of State that the radius of the threat that brings the United States into target range from North Korea also brings the United Kingdom into target range, because the ranges go over the poles. I am happy to show the right hon. Gentleman a map that demonstrates why it is more than just a threat to the United States now and a threat to Northern Europe later; there is a much greater degree of overlap.
As late as last May, the then Secretary of State said:
We are not in favour of developing ballistic missile defence systems. We are in favour of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, which was one of the … forerunners of arms control legislation.—[Official Report, 10 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 10.]
In the 1999 defence White Paper the Government started to chart a shift by saying:
The SDR concluded that it would be premature to decide on acquiring a ballistic missile defence capability. We continue however with a programme of work to understand the technology needed for active defence against ballistic missiles both independently and with our NATO allies.
On three separate occasions in the past year, I have made comments or speeches pointing out that we need to give a lead in Europe, and certainly within NATO, and try to get others to discuss properly the viability and nature of the threat. It is interesting that, even in the past few months, information about the developing relationship between Serbia and Iraq does not seem to have forced anybody in Europe to think carefully about the implications.
Serbia has—and has had for some time—48 kg of weapons-grade uranium, and a recent report from the Mulholland Institute informs us that the only thing that Iraq lacks to make its nuclear weapon is enriched uranium. Those two nations are currently exchanging information and forming ties of friendship. That shows clearly that proliferation continues.
Even the inspectors now recognise that even while they were in Iraq, the Iraqis were happily gathering information and capability—ironically, through various market mechanisms—to enable them to produce weapons of mass destruction. That has continued throughout the
320
period of sanctions. What view do we take of the whole process of missile defence, given that there is a country that needs uranium and a country that has it, both of which have pariah status in the eyes of the rest of the world?
Arguably, if Serbia learned one thing during the Kosovo campaign, it was that taking NATO on with conventional weapons is simply not on. The capability has moved on so far that it might consider that the one thing that might have stopped the operation would have been the possession of a weapon of mass destruction, biological or nuclear, which could have created, especially for those who are close to Serbia, just the sort of tensions that we managed to overcome in the NATO alliance. That might have broken our unified front.
The Secretary of State made it clear today that there has been yet another shift in the Government's thinking—probably driven by the intelligence gathering of the Ministry of Defence—so perhaps they, at least in the person of the Secretary of State, are at last beginning to recognise that there is a serious threat that will not go away, and needs to be dealt with in a number of ways.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath, was here earlier, and I wanted to raise with him a matter that I will now have to raise in his absence. The Defence Secretary said on 21 March 2000 that he would look sympathetically at requests to upgrade Fylingdales, but on the very same evening, in another meeting, the Minister of State said that he did not like
"the idea of a star wars programme, limited or unlimited."
The Government are sending out conflicting messages. The Defence Secretary, driven no doubt by the MOD's understanding of the nature of the threat, is beginning to move towards what I would consider a logical position, while the Foreign Office, in the person of the Foreign Secretary, and especially his Minister of State, is absolutely opposed to the process.
Will the Secretary of State make absolutely clear today the Government's view of the American position? Do they believe that national missile defence is the right response?
Ms Squire: I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about developments in North Korea and the relationship between Iraq and Serbia. Is his party in favour of the continuation and development of the anti-ballistic missile treaty?
Mr. Duncan Smith: Our position is clear. As the Secretary of State said earlier, we see that as part of a number of processes that are in train to control proliferation. The treaty-based obligations, which continue to be negotiated, are part of that. We are talking now about the problem with which the non-proliferation treaties have not succeeded in dealing, and that is states that are not deterred by those treaties from the possession of weapons of mass destruction—and the means to deliver them, whether by terrorists or by ballistic missile. Therefore, under the cover of those treaties, those states have developed such a capability. I mentioned Iraq's capability earlier, and that was developed during the interplay of those treaties. Of course we take the view that the ends should be achieved through negotiation and

321
treaty where possible, but at the same time we cannot wish away the reality of the need for another deterrent, which does not currently exist.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman did not quite answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) about amendments to the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Does he believe that the treaty should be amended, and what should the British Government's negotiating position be in order to achieve that?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention back to what he said in his contribution. We are not signatories to the anti-ballistic missile treaty, so it is a matter for the USA and Russia, and how it should be amended is to be decided between those two powers. However—this is the important point—obviously we want to see a viable arrangement between the possessors of nuclear weapons, as exists now. I do not resile from that position, but we do not have a negotiating position within the ABM treaty, as the Secretary of State said earlier. Our view or his view on the matter can only be passed to either party, and will not affect any amendment to the treaty.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the ABM treaty should be renegotiated if possible. He mentioned the Soviet Union, but I trust that he accepts that Russia is its appropriate successor—although I gather that that is not accepted in some parts of the US. I trust that he is not implying that he would be prepared to see the treaty abrogated if satisfactory conclusions cannot be reached through negotiation.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I did not say what the hon. Gentleman claims I said, so the intervention and my comments do not hang together. The reality is that the ABM treaty is a matter for its signatories, and they will have to make the decisions. We will want—so, I am sure, will the Government—some accommodation to be made between the Americans and those who are now responsible for the treaty after the break-up of the old Soviet Union.
Mr. Donald Anderson: If such an accommodation were reached it would solve the problem. However, that may not happen, and we do not know the key position of the Russian Federation. Is it in a negotiating position and trying to get the best deal it can from the US, either in terms of defence or other matters, or is it absolutely against any form of renegotiation of the ABM treaty? In that case, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to countenance the abrogation of the treaty to meet US aims?
Mr. Duncan Smith: These interventions from Labour Members are enlightening. We are beginning to see the real debate that will take place in the Labour party when it has to make a decision about nuclear proliferation and ballistic missile defence: there will be a return to the old days of the 1980s, when it had to make a decision about our defence against the Soviet threat using theatre
322
weapons. I repeat that the discussions of the ABM treaty should take place between the signatories to the treaty. I cannot begin to say what the Russian position on the issue is, other than what everybody reads in the newspaper. All I can do is draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to what took place in the discussions between the Prime Minister and Vladimir Putin when he was over here. Beyond that, I leave it to the hon. Gentleman's judgment, because I cannot pursue the point.
I hope that the parties reach an accommodation, but the key question is the Government's position on the growing threat. Do they believe that the threat is in line with the Rumsfeld commission report and that, within the next three years or so, we are likely to face a direct challenge from a state armed with such weapons? If that is the case, are the Government prepared to respond to that threat? We still have not reached that position.
Mr. Bercow: In the light of what my hon. Friend has just said, does he agree that it was untimely for the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), to signal, in a written answer given on 24 January this year, a growing interest in a readiness on the part of this country to negotiate away her nuclear weapons? Does that not underline the importance of the Ministry of Defence retaining control over policy in these matters, and not allowing the Foreign Office to queer its pitch?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I must say that there appears to be a clear difference of opinion between the two Departments, and that is dangerous. When one sends a conflicting message to a possible aggressor, it will invariably take the weaker message that says that we will do nothing because we are instinctively and ideologically opposed to doing anything else. Countries that want to possess those weapons will take their cue from the mood of the Foreign Office, not the MOD.
I shall end my discussion of the issue by mentioning an interesting comment by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, who said in August last year:
Sooner or later, we will have to get off the fence and co-operate in developing a ballistic missile defence system.
The Committee at least is beginning to realise that we face a serious problem.
The second aspect of the Government's strategic thinking that is weak and wrong-headed—and also impinges on the ballistic missile defence debate—is on European defence. That comment will not surprise the Secretary of State, who made great play of the issue, and I shall respond. The Government's approach started for very much the wrong reasons. In 1998, the Prime Minister was worried about what he perceived as a weakening of his influence in the corridors of power in Brussels, because of our failure to be part of the euro, and he decided to discuss a range of matters on which we might toss a little more into the pot to rebalance the loss of influence. We should have had some warning of what was to come, because the Financial Times reported in June 1998 that it had been briefed about the grandiose ambitions of the Government in Europe and that the UK favoured closer integration in defence as part of a plan to increase influence in Europe. Clearly, the Government were by then beginning to see defence as just another big-ticket item in the game of influence.

323
On that basis, the Prime Minister started his initiative with the French in St. Malo. We have debated what was said, and I shall not repeat that now, but the decision taken there marks not only the difference between the parties but the difference in approach to what is best for the defence of these islands and of western Europe. The result of that shift will weaken NATO, not create a more potent and balanced NATO, and make it more difficult for it to operate in the future.
The French continue to make it clear how they see the process working. However, their view is totally at odds with that espoused by the Secretary of State. Recently, Hubert Vedrine, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, made that absolutely clear in an interview with Ouest France, when he said:
We aren't giving up the objective of making Europe a power in the world … that has driven us from the outset.
That is no surprise to anyone, but the fact that it was said recently, in the middle of all the discussion and debate about the construction of the European strategic defence initiative and the common european security and defence policy is important.
Britain should be taking a lead in working with the United States instead of acquiescing in moves that will weaken NATO. However, I want to focus on the practicalities. The lesson that the Secretary of State said the Government had learned from Kosovo—the Government are constantly referring to it—is that the European capabilities were wholly inadequate, with the United States providing the vast bulk of the air assets used in the Kosovo operation.
The obvious answer was that our European partners should spend more on defence and upgrade their currently woeful capabilities. Here we see the Secretary of State at odds with his predecessor. Lord Robertson has said on a number of occasions, and certainly quite recently, that European countries need to spend more on defence; he branded them "paper tigers". However, the Secretary of State's response—he said it again today—was that European nations did not need to spend more, and needed only to refocus their defence expenditure. He wrote in a letter to The Times:
Britain's Strategic Defence Review has shown that it is possible to make huge improvements in these areas through better use of existing resources. We are urging our partners and allies to use our review as a model for the modernisation of their own Armed Forces.
Mr. Soames: I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to create the impression that our European friends do not have good capabilities in some areas. Indeed, the French, the Germans and the Dutch have some extremely professional units that work very well with ours. Is it not correct that because very many of those forces are conscript forces that are completely unsuited to fighting and certainly to any high-intensity warfare, the change required and the time taken to get that change under way is so great that it makes the whole initiative quite meaningless in contemporary terms?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. The German Defence Minister recently made it clear that conscription is perceived as a tool of social policy. It means not just membership of the armed forces, but meals on wheels and the like. It is all part of what they call binding the country together, and they do not foresee a major change. A falling defence budget without any major
324
change will mean less rather than greater capability. That is what Lord Robertson, the architect of the SDR, meant when he spoke about paper tigers.
Mr. King: If it is still the case—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—one of the problems with the French conscripts is that they cannot be deployed outside metropolitan France. If we are looking to deploy the more mobile force to which the Secretary of State referred, one of the real problems with some of the European forces is that they are simply not available. I certainly remember that significant elements of the French forces in the Gulf were from the Foreign Legion, the only troops that they were able to deploy there.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I intend to move on to that point. What is not in dispute, however, is the view that the defence capability of the nations of Europe is not good enough to match that of the Americans or to complement or balance NATO. That is the key. I want to talk about whether what is being proposed presents a solution to that problem, or whether, as I hope to be able to demonstrate, it is there for other reasons.
Mr. Dalyell: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the topic of Lord Robertson, one or two of us Scots cannot recollect Lord Robertson telling the electors of Hamilton that there should be an increase in defence expenditure.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not absolutely au fait with exactly what Lord Robertson said at the election, but I do not recall that a pledge to increase defence expenditure was part of his election manifesto. I take the hon. Gentleman's word that it was not.
Ms Squire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan Smith: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I must make some progress, as I have given way rather a lot and I know that others wish to speak.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, The hon. Member for Leicester, East, has also made the same point as the Secretary of State that in essence, there is no need to increase defence expenditure, but they are at odds with the expert opinion provided by the International Institute for Strategic Studies which last October, in the Financial Times, said of the CESDP:
Unless defence expenditure is allowed substantially to increase, the build up of a serious defence capacity will remain the stuff of communiqués
We have had a number of debates in the House about the development of CESDP as a political initiative, but today I should like to ask some serious questions about the military practicalities. Reading from the interesting paper produced by the Political Committee of the European Council, I note that the so-called "headline goal" is for the force to be in place by 2003. The report said that the force will be made of up to 50,000 to 60,000 troops and that it will be militarily self-sustaining with the necessary command, control and intelligence capabilities, logistics and other combat support elements. The force

325
may even have to carry out more than one operation at a time. The document further states that the force will undertake
the most demanding mission for at least one year.
The committee noted that it would require an additional pool of deployable forces to provide replacements.
So what is the force for? The Secretary of State consistently attempts to talk it down. Apparently, according to the Government, it is meant to fulfil the Petersberg tasks and not much more. Those tasks involve peacekeeping and the delivery and co-ordination of humanitarian aid. That rules out a Kosovo-style intervention.
Furthermore, in his recent evidence to the Select Committee on Defence, the Secretary of State seemed to bend over backwards to tell us that the force would not have any particular organisation and that we should not get hung up on structures, as it was all just planning. Yet in France and Germany, in the European Commission and in Italy, as we heard earlier, it seemed to be a very different story. We have been through all the quotes time and again, but they seem to indicate that it is an embryonic European army or a Eurocorps. So who is wrong and who is right?
It beggars belief that we should be expected to accept from the Government that the EU and all its member states have embarked on four conferences, endless ministerial meetings, and talked ambitiously about this force of up to 200,000 troops, without believing from the outset that it required a structure and an organisation in its own right and was not just an ad hoc affair, as the Government seem to suggest.
Mr. Hoon: Let me bring the hon. Gentleman back to some degree of reality. He will know that that kind of planning process is routinely undertaken by NATO, as there is no NATO standing force. NATO consistently undertakes similar planning processes to deal with the scenarios that it might face. That is precisely the process that is being advocated for the headline goal. The hon. Gentleman really is making heavy weather of his Euro obsessions when he tries to see some structure lying behind the clear words of what has been agreed between EU nations.
Mr. Duncan Smith: That is precisely at the heart of the issue. If, as he keeps trying to do, the Secretary of State plays down the idea until it is not about organisational structures, but is nothing more or less than what NATO gets up to, the big question is: why in heaven's name have we embarked on it in the first place, if it is already available and capable of being done within NATO?
I shall take the Secretary of State down that road in a moment, as I hope that he will intervene again later. What is the reorganisation for? That is the key question. The suggestion is that it is just an ad hoc arrangement but, given the existence of NATO, why do we need to create, through the EU, the structure that has been described? It would include states that have not been aligned militarily with us or with our allies, but exclude a number of states that have shown their commitment to the defence of western Europe even though they are not part of the EU. There is no logic to that, and the proposition makes no sense.
326
What will the restructuring achieve that NATO cannot? The Secretary of State referred endlessly to the use of NATO assets, as do all the documents, but what are those assets? The right hon. Gentleman said that they could be used as and when required, but only in EU operations. However, under the terms of the reorganisation, they would be entrusted to nations that were not members of NATO. Do those assets include the US heavy-lift capability, or tanker aircraft, or access to US satellite information—even though not every NATO member country gets that information? Do they include US electronic warfare capabilities or air defence suppression aircraft?
In military terms, such questions go to the heart of the purpose of the restructuring. The point has to be reiterated that a false assumption is being made about the foreign policy dimension. It is that the world view shared by Britain and our EU partners will allow us to operate militarily with them, but will also—somehow—separate us from the USA. The question remains, however: how would we square that? What purpose would it serve, if we are not going to intervene in situations such as those in Kosovo or the Gulf? If we are going to intervene in such situations, where would it leave us? For example, we operated not with France in the Gulf, but with the US.
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is touching on an extremely important matter. The proposal is predicated on a difference of view between the European members of NATO and the US. Key US assets would be essential to the prosecution of an independent European operation. However, if the US authorities did not believe in the cause, why should they permit those assets to be drawn down?
Mr. Duncan Smith: That is much the point that I am trying to make as I bring my comments to a close. NATO is sustained because it is a practical option. As events in Kosovo showed, NATO can deliver military force where it is needed and produce results in a military context. If NATO were no more than an ad hoc political arrangement, it would never have got past first base in Kosovo, as the Secretary of State knows.
What in heaven's name is the proposal about if it does not achieve the same status as NATO, but remains merely the ad hoc arrangement described by the Secretary of State? That is the problem. If what is created does not become a big structure, it will remain no more than a political smokescreen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) noted, such a smokescreen would hide the fact that European nations would continue to cut their military budgets, thus reducing their capability. That in turn would place great strain on the NATO alliance, and would not solve the real problem, which is that more needs to be done, and done better.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I do not agree that the proposal is a smokescreen. The hon. Gentleman makes a caricature of what has been proposed. There has never been any suggestion that the European component, in the foreseeable future, would be able to take over a matter as large as the Kosovo conflict. The US has exerted constant pressure for burden sharing in NATO and for Europe to assume a greater role. It is accepted that there will be problems at the edge of Europe, perhaps in the Balkans. For good reasons, the US would not wish to be committed

327
there, but Europe could play a role by taking on a so-called Petersberg task. Such an operation would be relatively small, and the key element is that NATO will always have first refusal on it.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has made my point for me. Why is Kosovo always quoted as the lesson that we have learned, when what we are saying behind our hands is that there is no talk of resolving the Kosovo problem? The issue at the heart of the nonsense peddled by the Government is that, in reality, a political solution is being applied to what is essentially a military problem. That is deeply dangerous. We will see how the proposition divides NATO, which is concerned with military solutions.
The Secretary of State mentioned Europe's defence failings, but why cannot they be resolved in NATO? What problem exists that prevents strengthening the European arm of NATO? Why is there any need to go outside NATO? The proposal excludes some nations whose commitment to the defence of western European is not in doubt, and includes others that have never been allied with NATO. Why do we need to go outside NATO to achieve something that the Secretary of State believes can be done in an ad hoc manner anyway?
Mr. Anderson: The answer is simply that, in many theatres, the US may not wish to be involved.
Mr. Duncan Smith: That is nonsense, as it has been made clear within NATO that there may be occasions on which the US may not wish to be involved. For example, as with Kosovo, it has always been the case that not all members would want to be involved directly or militarily in an operation that NATO wanted to mount. My point is that such matters can be resolved in NATO, and that, contrary to the Government's apparent ambition, there is no need for alternatives outside NATO to be prescribed or created.
In reality, the Government have opened a door to those who consider NATO to be the problem rather than part of the solution. That is the dangerous aspect of the proposal, and the Government are busy telling everyone not to worry. They have told the Americans that the proposal is about improving capability. They have told the French that it is about improving European defence and having greater control over it. They have told the House that it is about nothing, really.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is allowing his anti-European obsessions to affect his process of reasoning. The important lesson for this country from Kosovo was that European countries were not organised in such as way as to allow them to respond rapidly to that conflict. The reorganisation is designed specifically to deal with that problem. Subsequent events have demonstrated that Europe can get forces in the field over a period of time. For example, about 80 per cent. of the forces currently in Kosovo are European, but the question is how we address that rapid deployment capability. That is where the relevance of Kosovo lies. If the hon. Gentleman had studied carefully the initial publication
328
made by my predecessor last October, in which the lessons learned from Kosovo were set out, he would have seen that relevance clearly. That is what he is missing.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Oh no I am not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps I might suggest to the House that interventions should be brief. I know that hon. Members are talking about a highly technical matter, but interventions must be brief.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my answer to the Secretary of State's intervention will be brief: the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He has confused the real lessons from Kosovo with the so-called solution that he has put together. The lessons from Kosovo were very simple. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said earlier, the nations of Europe have allowed their defence capability to fall below a level that allows them to work and co-operate with the best in NATO.
What is the point of being able to deploy troops to a theatre of war if they are not able to fight when they get there? The Secretary of State keeps on using the Kosovo argument, but if the European initiative that he has set out is not designed to deal with Kosovo, why in heaven's name does he use Kosovo as the relevant example? The key point is that the restructuring is really a political device, and the Government have released a tiger that will create huge problems.
The second strand of my argument has to do with sustainability under the strategic defence review—our ability, in military terms, to sustain operations while maintaining the objectives of the SDR. I want to consider the problem of overstretch, but not simply on the basis of figures. I want to consider how the Government are dealing with the problem and whether their actions have made things worse.
The key issue is the relationship between the regular forces and the reserves. The defence review made a commitment to increase the size of the Regular Army by 3,300 while reducing the Territorial Army by 18,000. Since that reduction, it has become clearer every day that it was wrong-headed. In every NATO nation of any significance—even some of small significance—the ratio between the regulars and the reserves is far higher than ours. That is especially true for America and Australia—although Australia is not a NATO nation—both of which have professional forces similar to our own. The logic for them is clearly that with smaller professional forces one needs to be able to access well-trained reserves—for obvious reasons.
Those ratios compare unfavourably with the Government's—on paper, a full strength of 111,000 to 40,000 in the TA. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) recently discovered on a visit to Texas, the US army reserve has almost as many men as the US Army. If the national guard is added, the US can put together a force that is nearly twice the size of its regular force.
The picture is much the same in France, Germany and Canada, where the number of regulars and reserves is broadly equivalent. For example, Italy can apparently mobilise 240,000 reserves to its army of 160,000.

329
Although we might debate the effectiveness of its regular army, that ratio is important for its operation. By contrast, our Territorial Army, under the review, does not even make up half the numbers in our Army.
The real problem is that our professional Army was forced to make a choice between it and the TA—of course, it chose the TA. Even if I accepted the Government's logic—that to increase the Army we had to reduce the TA—we must consider how bad things are in reality. Let us forget the paper and look at actual numbers: we are 6,000 men under strength. If the Adjutant-General is to be believed, it will take about 31 years, if all goes well, to get us up to strength, so surely the Territorial Army must play an even greater part in taking up some of the slack.
That is the key criticism. The Government's action on the TA has made matters worse and the situation will get progressively worse over the next few years. There is no slack and the TA will be unable to assist because the pressures on it are beginning to mirror those on the Regular Army. I want to highlight the fact that I am not engaging in a stupid debate about overstretch. We know that that is occurring—it happened while we were in office; that is fully accepted. We must deal with reality. How do we tackle the problem in the short and in the long term? In the short term, the reserves are critically important.
Equipment is also important in any discussion of sustainability. The forces that we put in the field need the right equipment, and enough of it, to sustain that deployment. That is the key to our future success. Recently, there have been several leaked reports. About a week ago, a leaked report from the Public Accounts Committee seemed to back up internal MOD reports about the Kosovo operation, leaked at the beginning of the year. The reports dealt with the problems of sustaining our initial and subsequent involvement in Kosovo.
When I talk to members of our armed forces, I find that they are deeply concerned about that matter. When they talk about support and spares, they all refer to what—rightly or wrongly—they believe to be the supermarket ethos of the MOD. They talk about the just-in-time concept. Many of them told me that when they went into Kosovo they experienced great problems in getting the right spares to the right place at the right time. Those comments seem to have been borne out by the reports. As a result of those problems, far too many tanks and armoured vehicles were off the road simply for want of a track or a bogey wheel that could not be supplied because of the limited spares support. Our commanding officers are worried about those serious problems; they believe that they are reaching crisis proportions.
The matter is critical. The Kosovo report will sound a wake-up call to the Government and to all politicians. The problems have gone too far and we need to think again. If we put our troops in the field, we must be able to sustain their action in both easy and difficult circumstances when they are opposed for some time. That will create an even greater problem.
We should also consider the future. Where are we going under the smart procurement programme? That was supposed to give our troops the right equipment to help them to operate in the manner envisaged under the
330
strategic defence review. The two latest big procurements are the BVRAAM—the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile—the short-term heavy lift, and the long-term commitment to tranche two heavy-lift replacement. It is time that decisions were made on those matters.
I hear that decisions have been made in the MOD, but we also hear—perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm this—that the Chancellor has taken control of those decisions. Apparently, he has his own view on the strategic and tactical requirements of the MOD. I was not aware that the Chancellor was such a military expert—he is now capable of deciding exactly what is required for the operation of the SDR. Will the Secretary of State remind his right hon. Friend—I am sure he has already done so—that, in the SDR, smart procurement laid a requirement on the Government? They were to stick to their part of the bargain—to make the decisions in time so that industry could produce the equipment for our troops to undertake their SDR requirements. Any further delays by the Chancellor will make a mockery of what he calls smart procurement—I would call it stupid procurement on a grand scale.
The MOD is in a difficult position. It is trying to operate under the SDR requirements and according to its view of what is happening throughout the world. However, as we proceed, we realise that some of those important assumptions were wrong and that the review itself was thus fundamentally flawed. That flawed review has led the Government into making incorrect assumptions, with the result that our armed forces are in difficulties. They face greater commitments, with the likelihood that the quality of their equipment is not as good as it might be. The Government need to review the matter immediately and rapidly. In so doing, they should also review their strategic requirements in the light of future threat. Unless they make a decision on ballistic missile defence and on their stance in that debate, and unless they lead that debate, I fear that we shall expose ourselves to a future threat to which we have no response. Then, of course, it will be too late.
2.49 pm
Mr. John McFall: It is a privilege for me to participate in this debate and to reflect on the Government's work, globally and locally. I am particularly interested in local matters, given that the Clyde submarine base and Coulport are in my constituency.
I congratulate the Government. Much mention has been made of global issues. When the Labour Government were elected in 1997, they banned land mines, so there will be no import, no export, no manufacture or transfer of land mines. No British soldier will ever lay an anti-personnel land mine. That is a great achievement. We can be proud of Britain's role in the world on that issue.
Mention has also been made of the strategic defence review. The problems have been going on for more than a decade. I was a member of the Select Committee on Defence when the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was Secretary of State for Defence and we were grappling with the problems of a post-cold war world. A common theme that has emerged under both Governments is: how do we respond to a changed world and make our forces more flexible and mobile? At the core of that is the need for change in our armed forces.

331
I know that great moves have been made over the past decade and I encourage the Government to continue to ensure that our forces have the flexibility and the mobility to respond to the crises in East Timor, Mozambique and other places that have been mentioned in the debate.
Although I recognise the need for the strategic defence review, I also understand the need to free up money for the front line. That is a key issue. We must eliminate unnecessary duplication across the three armed services, dispose of surplus MOD property and come up to date with e-commerce and information technology so as to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy. I wish to pose several questions about those issues. Although I recognise that changes must be made, the way that they are carried out is extremely important. How we go about our business concerns me.
As I said, I have an interest in the subject because of the bases in my constituency. It is important to emphasise how crucial those facilities are to Scotland, particularly when we hear the rantings of members of the Scottish National party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Exactly—they are not here for this debate. I have heard vacuous comments from the leader of the SNP and others about the Clyde submarine base, Coulport and Rosyth, and their argument that everything can be done by conventional ships. He knows, in his heart of hearts, and we know that that is total nonsense.
For the sake of individuals and political parties in Scotland, it is worth noting that in 1997–98, 10,640 full-time equivalent direct jobs were provided by the operations of the Royal Navy bases in Scotland. A total of £265 million in gross wages and salaries was paid to the employees at those bases, and of that figure more than 70 per cent. was paid in my constituency. Some 6,000 full-time equivalent jobs were provided for civilian employees, mainly civil servants, and more than two thirds of them were provided at the Clyde base. A further 4,641 jobs were for Royal Navy personnel, which were also concentrated at the Clyde base.
Taking into consideration other employment, other income, supply linkages and the fact that local firms have been given support, in 1997–98 the Clyde base generated for the Scottish economy 10,785 full-time equivalent jobs, 70 per cent. of which were civilian jobs. The resulting income for the area is estimated at £256 million, of which £154 million comprises wages and salaries to civilians. The base makes a substantial contribution to the local economy of Dumbartonshire, where more than 9,100 jobs have been generated, of which nearly 6,000 are for civilian residents. That is equivalent to 11 per cent. of all full-time equivalent employees in Dumbartonshire. If the SNP's defence policy were implemented, we would have a huge problem throughout Scotland—and not least in my area.
It is relevant to note that the figure of more than 10,000 direct full-time equivalent posts provided by the Royal Navy is greater than the number of jobs provided by 25 of the 60 industrial and service sectors in Scotland during 1997. The jobs make a huge contribution and we must go about our business in a sensible and sensitive manner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) mentioned the Govan shipyard and the contract for ro-ro ferries. My hon. Friend the Minister will know the heat and the emotion that the issue
332
has generated in Scotland, particularly on the Clyde. Polaris came to the Clyde in 1963, when there were about 33 shipyards on the river. We are now left with two or three, but there is still a proud tradition in the Govan and Yarrow shipyards. Ministers and the Ministry of Defence should listen to the pleas of communities on Clydeside, because tradition, symbolism and community pride are involved in ensuring that we have such jobs to provide employment in the area.
The problem for Govan is one of timing. I understand that contracts have been out to tender, but the contracts for the type 45 frigates will be made in three years' time. It is important that the yards have full orders to ensure the continuity of employment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde and others have made that very point.
Dr. Godman: I remind my hon. Friend that I have more constituents working in Govan than any other Clydeside Member. About 30 big orders will come from the MOD, but only four or five yards are capable of building the ships. My hon. Friend is right: those yards must be kept in operation to meet the massive orders that will come on stream very soon.
Mr. McFall: I mentioned the issue of community pride, but skilling is another factor. We do not want deskilling to take place on the Clyde so that, once this hiatus is over, we no longer have the work force to do the work. That important point must be made loud and clear to Ministers and the MOD. Had Ministers and others been in Glasgow when petitions were being organised, they would realise that there is a head of steam behind this issue.
My hon. Friend mentioned his constituents who work in the shipyards. Quite a number of my constituents also work in them, so we have a common interest in ensuring the stability of the Clyde yards.
Mr. Davidson: The case for shipbuilding on Clydeside is not based simply on emotion; it is based on the defence argument that it is absolutely and utterly essential that we retain the capability to build type 45 frigates and appropriate subsequent vessels. That capability will be maintained only if Govan Shipbuilders Ltd. is retained, as its new owners, British Aerospace, intend to operate Yarrow and Govan together as a twin-site location for a single yard.
We have a difficulty with the flow of orders at the moment, but did my hon. Friend notice, as I did, the breakdown of P&O's latest liner, which was built in a German yard? The Government should draw lessons from that, which I hope will lead them to conclude that what one pays little for at the outset might end up costing much more in repairs in the longer term.
Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend is extremely eloquent in putting the strategic case. The essence of his argument is that, if we want things to work, they have to be built on the Clyde. That message must be taken on board.
I raised the issue of service personnel residences in my constituency with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary yesterday and he was kind enough to respond to me. The Churchill estate in Helensburgh, which has more than 700 homes, has for many years required attention and

333
renewal by the MOD. That has been taking place in the past few years, but the MOD and the Navy have a legitimate case for disposing of a number of those houses because of the reduction in the number of personnel. There is a duty to individuals who came to Faslane to secure jobs in the Royal Navy and who are now in those homes. There is also a responsibility to ex-wives of naval personnel, whose marriages have broken up but who still find themselves in the area. The problem has continued for almost three years and my hon. Friend will understand my frustration—that is the least of it—and that of individuals who feel that their future housing requirements are threatened by what they would regard as the capricious decision-making process of the Defence Housing Executive and others.
I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary listened to me intently yesterday, and I understand that something will be done. I was on the telephone this morning to the Dunbritton housing association, which has put in a bid for the houses. Along with the Argyll and Bute council, it has been negotiating with the Defence Housing Executive over the past few years to take over the homes. It will soon be meeting Mr. Phillip Gibb of Defence Estates. I want the talks to take place urgently, as does the Minister. I know that he will be interested in the progress that is made. I hope that, over the next month or so, we can close the gap in perceptions between Defence Estates and the Dunbritton housing association, and ensure a good and stable future for many of the people in the Churchill estate.
There is a sound reason for having good social rented housing in the Helensburgh area, and the local Argyll and Bute council is aware of it. There are 523 applicants registered on the local authority housing waiting list for Helensburgh, and a further 163 are registered as statutory homeless persons. Last year, there were only 137 relets in the area. It is obvious that social rented housing is needed. The sooner that the Defence Housing Executive, Defence Estates, the Dunbritton housing association and the Argyll and Bute council sort out the matter, the better it will be for all. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I am willing to be involved in any negotiations at a local level to ensure that this three-year saga is brought to an end.
I bring to my hon. Friend's attention a letter that I received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 18 April, in which he said that the new Defence Logistics Organisation was being launched. He also said that the targets for reducing costs were essential, while improving the quality of logistic support to the front line. That has caused much concern, especially to the work force in the area that I represent and the unions.
I received a delegation of representatives of the various unions—the Public and Commercial Services Union, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, the GMB and the Transport and General Workers Union—at my constituency surgery only last Friday. In the past week, I have been provided with one of the newsletters of the Clyde trade unions.
The unions feel that they have been betrayed by the MOD on this issue, which goes back to the DLO initiative headed by Brigadier Sam Cowan. Little information has been made available to the work force, whose members
334
feel that the negotiations that are taking place between Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd., the MOD and private employers mean that their jobs will be lost. We have struggled for years to ensure that there is no privatisation at Rosyth or at the Clyde submarine base at Faslane. When, only a few years ago, there was such a threat involving HMS Neptune and catering supply services were threatened, the unions and I went to see the then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), who is now Secretary of State for Scotland. We put the unions' bid forward while recognising that money had to be saved under the strategic defence review for front-line services. The unions were willing to work with the MOD to ensure that that money was saved, but that jobs were also saved in the process.
The HMS Neptune initiative resulted in a saving of £1 million a year to the services while jobs were retained. I ask the Minister to ensure that sensitivity is brought to the DLO initiative, otherwise fear will be induced in the work force and morale will decline. That is the last thing that we can tolerate in that environment.
I ask for clear guidance and for lines of communication to be opened with the unions to ensure that the contribution that they have made over the years is appreciated and that it will be maintained. There must be no rushed decisions or judgments on any possible privatisation. The Under-Secretary knows from my discussion yesterday that I shall be taking a close interest in these important matters as they develop, as will my hon. Friends.
I shall mention one or two matters in the context of Britain's role in the world, the first of which is arms control and non-proliferation. The post-cold war scenario indicates that one of the most serious threats is the proliferation of missiles, which can be adapted to carry biological, chemical, conventional and nuclear warheads. One problem is that missiles are used increasingly for legitimate purposes—for example, for satellites and space exploration. I suggest that our objective should be to establish a missile control convention, which would reduce proliferation by requiring full transparency, verification mechanisms and the establishing of international export controls.
Urgent attention should be given to introducing measures to curb the frightening spread of small arms, most of which are exported from the former Soviet states. A good example of such an initiative is the small arms moratorium in west Africa. However, we should be exploring other approaches at a small arms convention, which would place production, sales and, above all, exports under an international transparent regulatory framework.
We have widened our export control regime to European Union countries, but how can that be replicated globally? Should we be proceeding through the United Nations? We should be debating such measures so that they can be taken forward on the international stage.
There could be an international weapons monitoring centre, where satellite surveillance would be undertaken. It would provide the opportunity to have an international co-ordinating monitoring system for large weapons. A verification regime is essential for chemical and biological weapons through the biological weapons protocol.

335
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the important issue of joined-up government, which is important not least in terms of international development. If we are to have a stable and peaceful world, we must rigorously pursue the goal of international development. The countries where education is in the ascendancy and where economic development is taking place are largely at peace. War is taking place in countries where there is ravaging poverty and little education. Joined-up government means the Ministry of Defence working with the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development to ensure that our global aims in eradicating world poverty and ensuring that there is education throughout the world are realisable. These aims will not be pious in their objective; they will be pragmatic and will have profound strategic consequences in ensuring that we create a peaceful and stable world.
We must ensure that we have not only joined-up government but a global approach to solving problems, so that we can look forward to the day when we have a more decent world. With that in mind, the role of Britain in the world is extremely important. We are playing our part in promoting initiatives, and I hope that we will continue to do so.
3.10 pm
Mr. Tom King: I certainly join the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in his plea for joined-up government and for Britain to continue to play a role in helping to ensure a more peaceful world. In the hon. Gentleman's ambitions in that respect, I see the role of the Ministry of Defence and our armed forces not as traditionally bellicose and war-mongering but as crucial to the world in its capacity to do good. The events of recent years mean that I do not have to explain that comment—it will be readily understood.
My intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) shortly after that of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) revealed to hon. Members, although they may already have known, that I had a deep involvement in defence at a particularly critical and difficult time of change. I learned from that period about the delicate balance that one has to strike between commitments and resources. That balance has been mentioned in the exchanges between Front-Bench Members.
I was involved in an extraordinary period of change following the cold war—a situation that had been static everywhere except on the periphery. We had maintained as many as 300,000 troops in Germany, although that figure had fallen to 100,000 by the time that I became Secretary of State. The line of the iron curtain, running across the centre of Germany, was seen as the front line of defence of the western world. We had to handle the move to a sensible, sustainable—almost peacetime—footing, and I believe that we achieved that.
Unfortunately, having achieved change and moved from position A to position B, we came to a standstill, but it was sensible to maintain the existing structure, resources and scale of operation. I shall be honest and say that I viewed with concern, but a certain amount of understanding, the move into "Front Line First", the review of the support services and the various examinations that followed. Difficult decisions had to be made during those years of the Conservative Government, but I think that in general they got them about right.
336
Throughout my time as Secretary of State, and subsequently, the Labour party's policy was to have a review. That was a way to avoid making any commitments or embarrassing statements. One did not have to be the world's greatest psephologist to see that there was the possibility of a change of Government in 1997, and I was concerned about whether the Labour Government would prove to be a Government who were prepared to give defence the priority that my party and I had, over the years, believed necessary.
There have been suspicions and allegations—the latter are frequently made on the hustings—that the Labour party is not interested in defence. Holding this debate today does not help to dispel that impression among the general public. A debate on defence in the world, an issue that the House should discuss and which should be of great concern to us, is held on the one day of the year when most hon. Members are likely to be away and unable to attend. Such timetabling of parliamentary business happens, and other debates have been held on unfortunate days, but it contributes to a general impression of the present Ministry of Defence team.
I make my remarks in no sense of personal animosity or offence to the Ministers concerned. They are not the most senior Ministers in government. The Secretary of State had been a Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department and within four months of becoming Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office he was moved to his present post. Not a single Defence Secretary in the Conservative Government had not already had several years of Cabinet experience before he moved to that position.
Defence is always under pressure. One can always cut defence expenditure because one will not pay the penalty for that action within the next one or two months, but the need for wisdom and an understanding of the importance of maintaining sufficient defence expenditure becomes abundantly clear when problems start to arise and resources are needed.
There are competing forces in government. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referred to the strategies and ambitions of the Prime Minister, who wants our defence contribution to be a ticket to a bigger chair at the table of European discussions. The Foreign Office has its own ambitions and ideas, with the Treasury, God help us, always trying to find out how it can economise. The Secretary of State for Defence is in a lonely position, and it is tough facing those ambitions. He has to have seniority and clout if he is to begin to defend his Department against big hitters around the Cabinet table, some of whom will want to push him in directions that may not make sense in defence and military terms. On the other hand, the Treasury is anxious to deny him the resources to achieve the aims that he considers necessary.
I am not, therefore, surprised that there is a general opinion, which comes not only from a party-political viewpoint, that defence is not being given the necessary priority. Although I make that observation as a party politician, I hope that the House will recognise that I speak with deep concern for defence and our armed forces. I have huge respect and affection for them and the role that they have played so consistently over the years. Our armed forces, too, observe the respect and attention awarded to them by the Government and note Ministers' concern about their welfare.

337
The ministerial team are sincere and they are trying hard to handle the portfolio, but they are very new to the subject. It seemed logical to have a review that would be foreign policy driven. That sounds wonderful, but it depends on a strong belief that the Foreign Office is capable of divining the future so that we can adequately meet all our needs. I found one of those quotes that one finds at the bottom of the page in one's diary. It is by Disraeli, although I was not aware that he had said it. He said:
What we anticipate seldom occurs. What we least expected generally happens.
Disraeli could not have predicted the Falklands war. The role of the Foreign Office in giving advice was not entirely unconnected to the mess that we got into over the Falklands. I was involved in the Gulf situation. Nobody identified Saddam Hussein's intention to invade Kuwait; the intelligence on that point was almost non-existent. On the contrary, we had good intelligence that although he would make a show on the border, he would not invade Kuwait. Hon. Members will remember that.
When that happens, the Ministry of Defence cannot say to the Foreign Office, "We are terribly sorry but this event is not on your list of predictions, and we are meeting the foreign policy-driven requirements of the strategic defence review, so I am afraid that we are not available for that engagement." The Ministry of Defence has to make provision, and our armed forces have to discharge, with great distinction, whatever duty is required of them. Foreign policy does not provide sufficient drive for the defence strategy of our country.
I agree that we need flexibility and mobility. The Secretary of State referred to them as though they were discovered only during the strategic defence review. I refer him to the White Papers issued by the Conservative Government, including "Britain's Army for the 90s" and "Options for Change". The MOD has a great capacity for regurgitating worthy slogans, and mobility and flexibility are concepts that have been well embedded for some time. We moved away, rightly, from the rigid structures of the cold war and from the emplacements of the front lines of the iron curtain to a more flexible, mobile defence structure. However, flexibility is needed both in military capability and in concept and imagination.
The Secretary of State commented on how much NATO has changed and how different it now is from 50 years ago, 20 years ago, and 10 years ago—which is when I sat in on NATO meetings. I remember that in those NATO meetings, we sat next to the United States, because seating was arranged in alphabetical order. Then, at a meeting of Partnership for Peace, I found myself separated from Dick Cheney, then US Defence Secretary, and General Colin Powell, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, by the representatives of Ukraine, who were seated on my left, and on my right sat the representatives of Uzbekistan. At that moment, I realised the speed and the extent of the change that had occurred in the world and the conceptual framework within which we had worked for 50 years, when none of those people would have got through the door without being arrested.
Some things change, but some things stay the same. I shall not talk, as I have before, about overstretch, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford
338
Green referred. We have present a Minister responsible for resources, even though the Secretary of State bravely said that defence is not merely about resources—that is true, but resources are an extremely important element. There is currently a serious problem of overstretch and I am profoundly worried that we have not yet seen the full impact: I wonder what impact serious retention difficulties will have on the capacity of our armed forces to respond to new problems.
Certain factors are critical to the success of our defence posture. The first, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referred, is NATO, which has lain at the heart and been the strength of our defensive alliance. The United Kingdom has a vital role to play, but the key element in NATO is the United States of America. I am not against European co-operation; I am not against Europe taking on a greater burden where it can, nor against Europe conducting operations in which the United States does not want to be involved. However, that must be done in such a way that it does not undermine American confidence or give the Americans the feeling that we are walking away from them.
Allow me to illustrate with an example from an area in which I take a strong interest. As the House knows, I have the privilege to be Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. In the new types of engagements in which we have become involved, arising from a mobile and rapidly changing world—for example, in Mozambique, Kosovo or East Timor—good intelligence is a priority. Intelligence input can result in our armed forces being deployed in territories previously unencountered. The ability to gather accurate, good intelligence is absolutely essential, whether it takes the form of images or some other medium.
The House will know that the intelligence relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is extremely important to both. Hon. Members might be aware that, only the other day, a considerable part of US intelligence capability collapsed; operations were sustained during that difficult period by GCHQ, which shows the closeness of that relationship and the extensiveness of the interdependence. I understand that, for a similar reason, there have been one or two collapses in London today, which only goes to show the new challenges posed by the new world. It is vital that we maintain that intelligence relationship and have access to American ideas, capabilities, research and development in matters such as information warfare.
I do not know the full extent of events in London today, but it is obvious that that which, during the war, would have been achieved by a bomb can now be achieved through information warfare of some sort. Nowadays, it is as easy—and probably more effective—to attack a power station by disabling its computers as it is by using traditional military means. We need to work together with those who are capable of developing the responses and defences that are needed in such situations. The SDR spoke of asymmetric warfare. New developments outside the traditional forms of defence and warfare will, no doubt, increasingly challenge the major developed countries of the western world. We need close co-operation with our allies and partners, of whom America is one.

339
I care about defence issues and this country's defence capabilities because I remember Dean Acheson's famous remark:
Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.
I do not think that people say that now, because Britain has started to find a role that it can play. America, well directed and well guided, can be a great force for good in the world, and it is arguable that it is now the only superpower. However, its isolation is a weakness: if America acts unilaterally, the action is perceived as American imperialism, and that perception inhibits America's capacity to play its potentially most useful role. America needs critical, constructive partners and allies.
During the Gulf war, everybody played their part: the United States provided leadership, but it was the United Kingdom becoming involved as the crucial first partner that provided the nexus around which others could build. Now, as other events unfold throughout the world, we see the role that Britain can play, not in an imperial sense, but in the sense of our acting as the good citizen and partner in the world, to which the hon. Member for Dumbarton referred.
That is why I care that we should maintain our defences. It is no good our coming to the Chamber and paying tributes to our wonderful armed forces if we are not prepared to give them the resources, the training, the equipment and the experience they need to carry out their many roles. If we provide them with what they need, our armed forces will continue to bring credit to this country and this country will continue to make its contribution to the world.
3.28 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I cannot resist the feeling that today's debate resembles a bran tub into which one can put one's hand and pull out an issue or a topic that will not be out of order and that, because of the broad title of the debate, will allow one's speech to remain relevant, at least to some degree. In that spirit, I should like to raise three procurement issues that relate to Britain in the world, but that the House might have expected to address during a debate that dealt solely with procurement matters.
On the missile for the Typhoon, it seems to me that it is more than high time that the Government made a decision. The same applies to the C-17s or their equivalent, which formed an important part of the strategic defence review and around which, like the roll on/roll off ferries to which I shall come later, the whole concept of an expeditionary strategy is based.
If the reports—which have all the appearance of having been deliberately leaked from the Treasury—are true, the House and those of us with an interest in defence will want categorical assurances from those on the Treasury Bench today that they will fight the Ministry of Defence corner as hard and as toughly as they can. Those two procurement decisions are vital for the capability that every hon. Member who has spoken so far has said is essential if we are to play the role that fate may ask us to fulfil.
With regard to the roll on/roll off ferries, I visited Govan Shipbuilders during the Easter recess—not just because I was born, and spent a great deal of my life, on Clydeside, but because the issue is of such great significance not only for the survival of the shipyard, but for the procurement of the 30 future orders that we have been assured today are likely to be placed in due course.
340
I was impressed by the extraordinary realism of the shop stewards whom I met there, all of whom had worked for more than 30 years. In the history of that shipyard, there must have been many occasions on which they thought that the next pay cheque would probably be the last. However, they are men of enormous commitment and entirely realistic about the issue and what the solution should be.
I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and, in an intervention, those of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok—formerly Govan—(Mr. Davidson), who has left the Chamber. I adopt what they said and use it for my argument, but I make a further point, which has not been made so far.
Those whom I met were at great pains to point out that if the order for four or six roll on/roll off ferries goes to Govan, it will be the key to unlocking investment of about £150 million by the owners of the yard. That would enable the two yards, Govan and Yarrow, which are at opposite ends of the Clyde tunnel and can be reached in a few moments, to compete effectively for the 30 future warship orders that are likely to be placed.
That is good not just for Govan and Yarrow, but for the Ministry of Defence, which must be assured that the capability exists and that the yards can compete with one another, to ensure the best possible price. I hope that we will get an early decision that meets the legitimate aspirations of those whom I met on my visit and all those who work in that shipyard.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman visited Govan, which I visited two weeks ago. When he went to Govan, was it explained to him that if the orders for the roll on/roll off ferries do not come to British yards, including the Clyde, thousands of skilled shipbuilding workers will have to be laid off, and there will be a gap before the type 45 destroyer orders come through? Either those workers will not be available, or it will be much more expensive to hire and train them, so ultimately British yards will have to quote higher prices for the type 45s. Taking the long-term, lifetime view of cost which, under smart procurement, the MOD is supposed to do, that factor should be taken into account in deciding where to place the orders for the roll on/roll off ferries.
Mr. Campbell: That point was made to me, and I accept it as valid. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench listened to that intervention, which seemed entirely sensible.
The past few months have not been easy for Ministers. Hardly a day has gone by without allegations of overstretch or undermanning, increasing strain on the families of those who serve in the armed services, faulty equipment, low stocks of munitions and, as we have discussed, the deferment of essential procurement decisions. The most recent example was the draft National Audit Office report, which was pretty robust.
The shadow Defence Secretary was right to raise the notion of just-in-time supply. It may suit Tesco and Safeway, but it should not suit the Ministry of Defence. I recollect—and I hope that my mind is clear on the matter—that the notion of just-in-time may have been introduced as part of the defence costs study "Front Line First" by Mr. Secretary Rifkind, as he then was.

341
That being so, the difficulties and inadequacies caused by that approach almost certainly date from an earlier stage than the present.
Mr. Soames: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that the notion was introduced in the defence costs study, but as he will remember, it was introduced for good reason. The services had enormous stocks stored away. Much of that was useless, entailing vast cost, and had to be cut down. I agree that it may not be the perfect system, but it is much better than tying up in current stock a great deal of the money that the services need.
Mr. Campbell: I do not want to pursue the supermarket analogy too far, but the one thing that distinguishes successful supermarkets is that they do not have a great deal of produce tied up that is never sold. If the intention had been to introduce just-in-time in that sense, it might have been successful, but it is apparent from the operations in which we have recently been engaged that, as presently constituted, it has not provided the necessary logistical support.
We cannot point the finger at our troops. It is notable that the British soldier remains the partner of choice in peacekeeping contingents. That tells us a great deal about the professionalism and commitment to which we pay tribute on these occasions.
We should have a self-denying ordinance to provide that we can talk about defence expenditure and how much it has fallen on this occasion and never again. We should acknowledge that we have got to the present point by various means, and consider how we can best ensure that our forces get what they deserve in future.
It is true that defence spending has fallen by 22.6 per cent. in real terms since 1989. The budget for 2001–02 will be 4 per cent. less in real terms than in 1998–99. Whether that is a saving or a cut may be an interesting exercise in polemics, but it does not help the soldier in the field. The best way to look at the issue is as summed up by the Select Committee, which stated that the armed forces were being asked to do "more with less".
When the reductions in expenditure were taking place, the then official Opposition never said that defence expenditure must not be cut by the amount proposed by the then Government. I own up. I never said that. There was in the House, although never expressly stated, an acceptance that the cuts should proceed. That makes it all the more difficult seven, eight or 10 years later to say that what is happening now is justified by what happened before.
Moral imperatives rarely come cheaply. The right of intervention, which the Prime Minister rightly set out in his Chicago speech, presupposes a moral obligation to give our forces all that is necessary to carry out the difficult and dangerous tasks that may be involved in such interventions. It may well be true that defence is not a high priority among focus groups, but it would certainly become a key political issue if British forces should fail in some highly visible mission at some future date.
It is clear that the evidence strongly points to the fact that the current deployments in Bosnia, Kosovo and the Gulf would become very difficult to sustain if we were called upon to make even a further medium level deployment.
342
What is to be done? A return to the 1998–99 defence budget of 2.7 per cent. of gross domestic product would require an increase of £3.4 billion. To hit the 3 per cent. GDP figure, much beloved of the Chairman of the Defence Committee, who is not with us today, would require an increase of £6 billion in the defence budget. Such increases are not sustainable in the present budgetary climate, but the Government could certainly abandon the damaging and debilitating 3 per cent. so-called annual efficiency saving. If the Government wanted to take one measure to restore morale and reduce financial pressure, that would be the easiest to undertake and the most politically acceptable. Otherwise, the time may well come when a commitment, which, for political, environmental or other reasons, was entirely to be supported, would have to be turned down because of lack of resources. That might prove extremely embarrassing for the Government and the House of Commons.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I agree completely about the 3 per cent. efficiency saving, or cut, whatever one wants to call it, but is not the real problem that when the Treasury got its £800 million a year, it took it regardless, and that that drove the MOD to look for this internal saving? If it abandons that saving, it will have to bear the full effect of the cut. Therefore, the Treasury would have to hand some money back.
Mr. Campbell: The word on the street—if one can say that of Whitehall—is that the Treasury wanted £2 billion. The Prime Minister—largely as a result of his visit to Washington in 1998 when, in discussion with President Clinton, he realised the significance of our maintaining military capability in terms of political influence—allied himself with the former Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Robertson, and they were able to beat the Treasury off to the extent of only £500 million. But the price that had to be paid was the so-called 3 per cent. efficiency cut. Cut or saving, the effect is almost inevitably the same.
There will be public pressure for intervention in future, and it is worth reminding ourselves that that pressure will arise in a quite different international environment. Environmental degradation, resource depletion, volatile markets, unequal economic relationships, and even mass immigration will play an important role in the next decades in fostering insecurity. Another important feature of all this is that in modern conflict 90 per cent. of all casualties are likely to be unarmed civilians. The civilian has replaced the soldier as the primary casualty of warfare.
How shall we contain and, I hope—I suppose that it is a pious hope—eliminate such conflicts? That will depend on the negotiation and implementation of treaties imposing tighter obligations on Governments. Conversely, it will also depend on a commitment by Governments to honour such treaty obligations and international procedures to ensure the observance of such obligations and the acceptance that national sovereignty does not give state Governments the right to deprive their citizens of the fundamental human rights set out in the United Nations declaration of human rights. That is a different environment from the one that we have surveyed during the past 50 years or so.
In that new world, not necessarily brave, nor one that has brought its own order, the United States, for the foreseeable future, will be unchallengeable as a military power—the dominant force in maintaining world order.

343
But it is not difficult to argue that global dependence on a single dominant state is not healthy for that state, nor for the others. That is why I am unashamedly of the view that the EU must be prepared to take up responsibilities in contributing to international stability and peace.
A particular role that we may be able to fulfil concerns Russia. We should reflect upon and understand that anti-NATO feeling in Russia has never been higher, even among those whom one would regard as liberal moderates in the Duma. For them and for many other Russians, Kosovo was a betrayal of trust; they would say that it was the perfect example of NATO's aggressive intentions which the west has been at pains for so long to deny. Our argument that humanitarian justification permitted intervention has largely fallen on deaf ears. They in turn would say that Kosovo has created a new precedent by which, if there is deadlock in the Security Council, a regional alliance may act alone, intervening in the internal affairs of another state.
In that regard, a European Union with a more assertive role in matters of stability, peace and security, may be able to provide a more effective bridge to NATO than NATO standing alone has been able to in the immediate past.
Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, as it happened, the west's proverbial bacon was saved by pressure on Milosevic from Russian military intelligence? The Russian military intelligence establishment in Moscow was the decisive force in bringing Milosevic's actions to an end. Does he further agree that it is becoming clear that Operation Horseshoe was manufactured in the first instance by Bulgarian intelligence?
Mr. Campbell: I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's second proposition, but I certainly take the view that the intervention of the Russian Foreign Minister, when he went to Belgrade and said that, in the event of a ground attack, Milosevic could not look to Russia to provide any support, was undoubtedly a determining factor in Milosevic's decision effectively to sue for peace.
It is also true that under Mr. Putin, about whom I have publicly expressed some reservations—the alacrity with which he was received in the United Kingdom was quite improper, but I put that to one side—we have had the ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty by the Duma and the ratification of the second strategic arms reduction treaty. Those are important steps forward.
We should also understand that events in Kosovo and the basis for intervention there was followed closely by China as a permanent member of the Security Council, and also by India. There are those now who argue that some form of defence and foreign policy co-operation between those major regional powers who were most opposed to the intervention cannot necessarily be ruled out in the future—once again, a sign of the changing environment.
Britain accepted a long time ago that we could no longer conduct defence on a wholly independent basis. That was why we became a member of NATO. The logic for Europe collectively making better use of the $160 billion or so which it spends on defence is overwhelming. Whether more needs to be spent or whether what is being spent should be more effectively
344
spent is an interesting question. Some studies say that for two thirds of the expenditure we get 10 per cent. of the capability. Most Chancellors of the Exchequer would want to look first at whether better value could be obtained for the money being spent. But if it were necessary to spend more to achieve a level of capability, European Union countries that are members of NATO should not be allowed to shrink from that obligation.
It is clear that the United States is far ahead of its European allies in rapid reaction, technology, heavy lift, and—as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) eloquently pointed out—intelligence. Far too often the debate revolves around questions of institutions and, as the shadow Defence Secretary made clear, the argument about how to give Europe a greater voice in the deployment or use of American assets.
Fundamental in Europe, if the idea is to have anything other than a presence on paper, is that capability must be provided in a form and of a substance that will allow Europe to conduct operations such as that in Kosovo. The Petersberg tasks were for the Western European Union. If the capability is to make any sense whatever, it must be adequate to allow us to conduct operations such as Kosovo.
If we consider Bosnia, we realise with the benefit of hindsight that European countries' reluctance in the early days to deploy armed forces was a major cause of the continuing instability. Early deployment might have prevented much bloodshed and avoided many of the difficulties that took so long to tackle because the international community's reaction was so delayed.
It is right that NATO should retain its primacy. I advocate strongly NATO's right of first refusal. I tell those like the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who seemed less than enthusiastic about it, that the need for the capability is driven by the fact, which is becoming increasingly clear, especially on Capitol hill, that we cannot look to the United States to keep pulling European chestnuts out of the fire. We were able to rely on President George Bush in the Gulf, but which of us would be entirely happy to rely on would-be president George W. Bush to do the same in future, or to take the same interest in Bosnia and Kosovo that, with some arm-twisting and much hand-wringing, we were able to persuade President Clinton to show?
Let us consider national missile defence.
Mr. Wilkinson: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman considers the key issue of ballistic missile defence, will he explain how Europe, without vast additional expenditure, can acquire the required technology—space-based systems, adequate intelligence, heavy lift, a sufficiency of precision-guided munitions and personnel—to undertake an operation such as that in Kosovo? How will that be achieved?
Mr. Campbell: On numbers, there are 2 million men and women under arms in Europe. Many of them are conscripts.
Mr. Wilkinson: Trained people?
Mr. Campbell: One thing at a time. We should try to persuade the Germans to reconsider national service and

345
impress upon them the effectiveness, which we have found, of a fully professional army. The French have chosen to go in that direction because their experience in the Gulf convinced them that the capacity of an army based on conscripts to operate in a high-intensity warfare spectrum was substantially limited.
I do not suggest that Europe should try to acquire the same capacity or quality of intelligence gathering as the United States. However, a properly funded, properly capable Europe ought to have been able to undertake an operation such as Kosovo by itself. Europe should pitch its tent and establish its objectives at that level.
I want to consider national missile defence. President Clinton has established four criteria: threat assessment, cost, feasibility and the effect on existing arms control treaties, responsibilities and allies. There are various estimates of the cost and scope of the ultimate proposal. A sharp division of opinion about what is necessary exists between Republicans and Democrats—that is hardly surprising in a presidential election year. However, any of the proposals would require substantial modification to the anti-ballistic missile treaty, against which Russia has currently turned its face.
Some reports suggest that Russia might be willing to make a compromise on changes to the treaty. If that is possible, it is worth examining. However, we must take account of the fact that a growing constituency in the United States rejects a multilateral approach to international security, which is represented by treaties and agreements such as the ABM treaty. That was underlined by the Senate's refusal to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty.
If threat is so important, we should remind ourselves of the classic definition of threat: capability plus intention. It is not the mere existence of the capability that constitutes the threat, but the intention taken with the capability. We must ask ourselves what motive could North Korea, Iran or Iraq have in launching a nuclear warhead at the United States, in the knowledge of the enormous capacity for retaliation.
Those who argue strenuously for NMD have not tackled to my satisfaction its undermining of the fundamental principle of deterrence. If deterrence is not effective, on what have we based our nuclear policy for the past 40 or 50 years? The threat is far less likely to come from nuclear warheads on Taepo Dong-2s, which may have the range, than from sarin on subway systems, as happened in Tokyo. That is the asymmetric threat to which the right hon. Member for Bridgwater referred. It is a much more acute threat. I should be far more comfortable if the vast energy of the Pentagon and the political anxiety of Capitol hill were directed at dealing with it.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is more plausible to argue that although there is no serious threat of North Korea launching a missile at the continental USA, the USA's policies in other theatres, such as defending South Korea, might be imperilled by the possibility of that threat? The threat is therefore indirect.
Mr. Campbell: There has been little consideration of the consequences for other areas if NMD were deployed.
346
For example, there has been some suggestion of the considerable unease of the Chinese. Some statements imply that they might feel compelled to increase their limited arsenal of 15 or 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles.
There is also a problem in Europe, which France and Germany have voiced, about the deployment of NMD. They cite the need for improved relations with Russia. They also make the point that some NATO members could become safer than others if some countries deployed NMD. That raises interesting questions about the obligation of mutual defence.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned understanding whether a threat existed through intention. He should recognise that the current concept of deterrence also existed in the mid-1980s. When the former Soviet Union deployed its SS20s, we did not say, "That's all right because our nuclear deterrent will deter them." We met the threat at the required level. The missiles may not be tipped by nuclear weapons; the threat may be biological. To be fair to the United States, it has established a domestic preparedness programme, which considers how to deal with the Sarin threat on the tube. We have done nothing similar.
Mr. Campbell: The deployment of cruise and Pershing depended on the then central NATO doctrine of flexible response. That involved a staircase of nuclear responses to specific scenarios. The compelling argument for Pershing and cruise was that if we did not deploy against the SS20s, the doctrine of flexible response would have a large hole in it. We could thus have found ourselves moving from nuclear shells to be used on the battlefield—or short-range nuclear weapons, such as Lance or its equivalent—to intercontinental ballistic missiles or Polaris. Without a deployment equivalent to the SS20, the notion of flexible response would have been substantially damaged.
What is in it for the ruling elite in Baghdad if its members fire—or even threaten to fire—a missile at Washington? The consequences for Baghdad would be horrific, and the ruling elite would not be exempt from them. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, although the notion of threat is firmly rooted in capability, sufficient account has not yet been taken of the fact that threat involves not only capability, but intention.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
Mr. Campbell: I must make progress—I have spoken for rather longer than I had intended—by briefly referring to Kosovo.
NATO did well in Kosovo, but it is an organisation of defence, not diplomacy and nation building. I find myself closer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) than he might otherwise believe in that we have a strong, compelling obligation to do much more about how Kosovo is being managed and about how the Balkans should be reconstructed. That is why a conference on reconstruction, a Danube co-operation pact or something similar represent the creative thinking that should be happening now. NATO was right to intervene and the

347
intervention was effective, but I am less than comfortable with what has happened in Kosovo since the end of the successful military operations.
I cannot remember when Iraq was last debated in the House, yet it remains the United Nations' most high-profile and intransigent headache. Iraq brings into sharp relief the authority under which the United Nations operates and the means at its disposal to enforce its resolutions. Since the Iraqi troops were ejected from Kuwait, the allied powers—to use that slightly dated language—have maintained strong forces in the region. The United States maintains up to 30,000 military personnel in the region at times of tension. The United Kingdom currently has 1,048 men and women servicing the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq and nearly 1,900 on the carrier group operating in the Gulf region. Those are substantial commitments.
There are almost daily confrontations between allied aircraft and Iraqi air defence forces. Between last October and April, coalition aircraft have been fired on by surface-to-air missiles or anti-aircraft artillery on more than 200 occasions and, in response, have attacked almost 90 targets related to the Iraqi air defence network.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: I want to make progress, if I may. Since 1992, the Ministry of Defence—
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, understandably, that he did not know when there had last been a debate on Iraq. There have been three Adjournment debates—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is in clear breach of the rules of the House in trying to make that point in that way.
Mr. Campbell: I freely acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has been at pains to raise the issue of Iraq—[Interruption.] On as many occasions as he cares to tell us, but there has not been a debate such as this, open to the whole House and taking a day, when Iraq and, especially, the extent of our military commitment have been debated. I mean no disrespect to him.
Since 1992, the MOD has incurred additional expenditure of almost £900 million as a direct result of operations in the Gulf. There have been reports in The Times that the costs to British forces amount to about £4.5 million a month. I confess that I am anxious about what we are doing in the north and the south of Iraq because it could be interpreted as more of an attritional campaign against Iraqi defence systems and military infrastructure than an attempt to fulfil the original purposes of the no-fly zones. Of course, that has had consequences—action and reaction—because there are increasingly credible reports of deals, bargains and other arrangements between Iraqi and Russian weapons manufacturers and importers. Indeed, there are reports that Belarus has recently signed a £56 million deal to upgrade the Iraqi air defence system.
Mr. Donald Anderson: It is a proxy for Russia.
Mr. Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is a proxy for Russia. If Iraq were to succeed in
348
bringing down allied aircraft, that would boost Saddam's internal position and put Iraq firmly back on the domestic agenda in the United States and the United Kingdom in a way in which all of us who are interested in such matters would not necessary find comfortable. I support the policy that we have maintained for 10 years, but I should be wrong not to say that I have had some reservations about it from time to time. The time may not be far distant when we may be forced to review the policy.
The old certainties of mutually assured destruction have been replaced by an environment of proliferation and increasing uncertainty during the past 10 or 15 years. The glue of the NATO alliance—the most successful defensive alliance in history—has largely been loosened by the reduction of the acute nuclear threat. That threat has been replaced by other, more complex challenges that, unfortunately, do not have the same unifying force. All that continues to show the vital importance of the United Kingdom playing a significant, well-founded role in defence in the world, but I cannot resist concluding by saying that we must ensure that we have the resources to do so.
4.6 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), both of whom speak with a real commitment to defence and enormous knowledge of the subject built up over many years. [Interruption.] I am glad that I have stopped the right hon. Gentleman in his tracks. I was especially interested in what he said about asymmetric defence, which can take many forms.
The terrorist bomb that went off in the City could have crippled our financial capital if it had been a little closer to the centre of operations. I understand that that problem has now been solved, but the incident showed the enormous damage that can be done. For example, computer hackers could have gained access to the United States power system on the east coast, and biological weapons could be fitted into a milk churn. There are all manner of asymmetrical responses to the power at the disposal of the US and its allies. A major debate is taking place in the US on that matter, but, alas, there is little debate in the United Kingdom.
I have found the reversal of roles in defence debates since 1997 interesting. I took part in defence debates in the early 1990s and recall criticisms of the various reviews—"Options for Change" was described as Treasury led—and of the reductions in the Territorial forces. There were debates about heavy lift, the procurement of the C-17s and so on, so I have a feeling that this is where I came in. I was amused that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) says that he has converted to the idea of a defence review, although he wants it to be more foreign policy based. However, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater suggested that perhaps the Foreign Office did not have all the answers.
The summit of the knowledge of the Greek philosophers is said to be, "Know thyself." That is not a bad motto to apply to our defence capabilities. To know oneself means, in effect, to know where one has come from, one's history, geography and current position,

349
and the challenges that might be faced in future. Our history has clearly given us a unique place in the world. I shall refer to some of the factors that might represent the security and political underpinning of a defence strategy, which the right hon. Gentleman said was lacking from the strategic defence review.
Given our history and our reduced economic status, we have a remarkable position in the world in comparison with, for example, Japan and Germany, which, although far stronger than us economically, do not benefit from the range of international organisations and the range of expertise that are available to us. I am thinking of, for example, the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, the Commonwealth and the G7 membership. A key part of Britain's role over the past 50 years has involved adjusting to the new realities that followed the elation of the victory in the war—a victory, certainly, but a very exhausting victory for this country.
Our special relationship with the United States, which resulted from co-operation during the second world war, is still very much alive. That is true in terms of intelligence, and in another sense. When the chips are down, the United States looks around for allies, and we are always there—as we should be when our interests are coterminous with those of the United States, as they almost invariably are. In any event, the hangover from our wartime co-operation remains, in terms of personnel and institutions.
We have managed to move away from the illusions of the mid-1950s. I recall that at that time, Sir Anthony Eden spoke of the "three circles" involved in United Kingdom foreign policy. He was referring to our relationships with Europe, the United States and the Commonwealth, and to circumstances in which we would never have to make a choice—circumstances in which we would become involved with the Continent only in our traditional role as restorers of a balance of power that might have been destroyed by a Napoleon or a Hitler. That assumption, which was wrong then, is even more wrong now, but it is still flirted with by some who talk in political terms of a North American Free Trade Agreement relationship.
I joined the Foreign Office in 1960, when we were just beginning to readjust to the idea of European union after an attempt to bypass the realities through the formation of the European Free Trade Association. Following the withdrawal east of Suez, we had to adjust our commitments to the resources that we were prepared to make available. It is possible that we were able to fulfil an independent role in certain areas during the 1980s. We did so successfully during the Falklands operation, but we would not be able to mount a similar operation now. Now, given that Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China, with the Falklands assured and a democratic Argentina, only through alliances will we be able to play a defence role. That was recognised in the strategic defence review.
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the south Atlantic, and I accept what he said about Argentina. Surely, however, the United Kingdom could conduct a Falklands-type operation rather better than it did in 1982. It now has the airborne early warning system, and the ability to project power more effectively. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not spread doom and gloom, in a
350
military sense. The Falkland islanders ought to know that they have not only the political reassurance provided by a good relationship with Argentina, but the military reassurance that the garrison can, if necessary, be fully backed up by power projected by the United Kingdom.
Mr. Anderson: I could easily go over this ground with the hon. Gentleman, who has strong interests in the area. He should note the change in our merchant marine force that has occurred during the intervening period, and compare our ability to deploy shipping then with our inability to do the same now. I could list a series of categories that would demonstrate the unlikelihood of our being able to mount a similar operation on our own today.
Let me now deal with the geographical aspect. We now operate mainly as a regional power, consistent with our interests in Europe, but we bring vast reserves of experience and the excellence of our armed forces to that. The real year of change was 1989; indeed, some have argued—I think the Foreign Secretary did in a recent speech—that the millennium began not earlier this year but, in broader terms, in 1989, when the Berlin wall fell and, subsequently, the old Soviet Union collapsed.
Two interesting examples were given to a parliamentary body by General Klaus Naumann, then the chief European commander in NATO. He said that prior to 1989 he was a company commander on the borders of the old Czechoslovakia. Static, looking over the border, he knew every bush on the other side of the frontier that he had to patrol. That was a very different sort of warfare. Indeed, the number of troops that were deployed along that central European frontier has already been mentioned today.
The general identified a remarkable difference from those days. He said that on one occasion when he was at NATO headquarters he found a member of the Russian delegation engaged in improper activities—spying, effectively. He summoned the head of the Russian delegation, and said "I have caught your colleague in a position that is clearly wrong, but this is the information that he was seeking. If you would like to have a look at it, here it is." That gives some indication of the sea change that has taken place since 1989.
That change has affected every aspect of our defence. I am thinking, for instance, of the way in which procurement has altered. A good example is provided by the Upholder submarines. Because of the lengthy procurement times, they were planned in the early 1980s. More than £1 billion of taxpayers' money was spent on them. By the time that they were at the point of commission, however, their whole purpose—their role in the northern approaches—had been made obsolete. Alas, fairly recently we sold them—albeit rightly—to the Canadians, at the best price that we could get. That gives some idea of the effect of the change, not only in terms of our strategic targets, but in terms of the logistics, materiel and weaponry to perform the necessary tasks.
The new European policy will evolve. There are clearly substantial differences between us and some of our European allies. I concede that there was a political element in the St. Malo summit. It can be seen, in part but not entirely, in the context of the wish to be seen at the high table in Europe and the fact that the financial door was blocked at the time and remains so, but there was more to it than that. There was clearly a convergence,

351
which culminated in the summit, between the French, who were finding their independent stance—both in terms of procurement and generally—insupportable financially, and ourselves, who were seeking a wider role in Europe.
St. Malo was broadly welcomed by our European allies, but it masks a somewhat different approach. Clearly, some in the European Union take the superstate approach. Any superstate must, by definition, have a military capacity, and—this may be connected with the Gaullist attitude of the past—must seek to distance itself from the United States. This Government, like this country, take a rather more pragmatic approach. We accept that there will be a security role for the European Union, and hope that there will be a wider definition in respect of the key NATO allies that are not part of the European Union, but we trust that it will be recognised that NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy, and that in many instances we shall wish to retain its assets. Indeed, it would be foolish to duplicate those assets even if there were a will to do so.
The undermining of some of the more grandiose European defence schemes is clear from the shrinking defence budgets of our European allies, and the lack of commitment to spend the money that could provide the heavy lift, the intelligence and the more sophisticated weaponry that our US allies can provide. There is first refusal—it is not a bad formula. The United States may feel, for whatever reason, that it is a European show, but still be prepared to co-operate. That is the point at which Europe will carry out the tasks, planning as far ahead as it usefully can. Those tasks must be fairly limited.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said that the Petersberg tasks were essentially for the Western European Union to carry out, but I understand that the WEU's only operation at the moment is a limited police operation in Albania. It is not difficult to foresee quite a number of tasks, particularly in the border areas of Europe—such as the Balkans—where our interests are mightily engaged, yet where the United States, for various reasons, might not want to deploy their forces. European interests—as defined broadly in terms of refugee flows and economic instability—are engaged there, and we would wish to be engaged.
It is wrong that many Conservative leaders see the matter in terms only of a broad anti-Europeanism—a gut anti-European Unionism—rather than being pragmatic, seeing that there is a natural regional alliance and that there is a role for the new Europe in that area—not a role for some vast superstate, but a role that is pragmatically defined. So much for the role of the new Europe in defence. Clearly, there will be vast areas of possible activity.
There is an enormous technological gap between the defence forces of the United States and those of Europe. Indeed, that gap has been exacerbated by the admission of three new members—Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary—at the Washington summit in spring 1999.
The military capacity of those countries is very limited, so, in technological terms, Europe is almost splitting into three. The United States is light years ahead of the rest. We lead the second division, as it were, and the technological capacity of the three new countries is substantially behind. That causes a problem in terms of inter-operability and working together in a co-ordinated way.
352
One does not have to be a Marxist to say that the economic substructure is of some interest. Increasingly, European business, including European aerospace business, is going ahead and making alliances well beyond what is happening politically. One thinks of the vision of someone such as John Weston at British Aerospace, and the way in which transnational alliances are being formed. That forms the basis commercially and economically for a new European alliance.
There were great reservations in the United States about the movement in Europe following St. Malo. That was shown diplomatically when Strobe Talbott spoke at Chatham house in the autumn of last year. My understanding is that those anxieties have been largely allayed. It is wrong for people to pretend that there is a gulf of misunderstanding between ourselves and our United States allies on the matter.
I turn to limited national missile defence. A major problem is looming. Four criteria have been set.
Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman is a great expert in foreign affairs. I know that he will recognise that it is great mistake to think that the State Department is the sole reliable spokesman for American opinion, or even opinion in the Executive branch. Strobe Talbott may be rather more relaxed about European security and defence policy post-Helsinki than he was, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is alive to the fact that there are still considerable reservations and concerns in the Department of Defence and, importantly, on Capitol hill.
Mr. Anderson: I said that the reservations and anxieties that were widespread in the autumn of last year and exemplified by Strobe Talbott's speech have been largely allayed and satisfied. When I say that, I mean that they have been allayed not just in the State Department but in much of the Administration as a whole.
Clearly, the problem on Capitol hill is different. There is a highly partisan atmosphere there, as one saw with the decision of the Senate, for partisan reasons, to oppose the President and not to ratify CTBT 2—but essentially the United States position as exemplified by the Administration is much more satisfied about any potential threat from developments in Europe.
On limited national missile defence, the criteria were set out by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife: threat assessment, costs, existing treaties and so on. My judgment is that the decision will not be made according to those criteria, any more than the British Government's decision on the euro will be made according to the criteria for the euro. The matter is driven essentially by domestic politics in the United States. There is an enormous cross-party coalition in favour of some form of national missile defence. It derives in part from a feeling that the United States is vulnerable and the illusion that it can be made invulnerable as a result of such a system.
That raises many questions. The technical problems still have not been solved. Any so-called rogue state that has the capacity to send a ballistic missile to the United States will probably have the capacity to have a number of decoys—chaff and so on. There are still many technical and political questions with regard to the effect on Russia, the anti-ballistic missile treaty and China.

353
I well understand the Government's unwillingness to say that they need to make a decision, because they hide behind the hope that they will not have to make one—that there will been an accommodation between Russia and the United States, with a limited amendment of the ABM treaty. However, if, for whatever reason, Russia refuses to agree to such an amendment and the United States goes ahead anyway, a real dilemma will face this country.
If it is our view that the urge within the United States to deploy some form of national missile defence is unstoppable, will we then say that we accept the inevitable? Will we say that, having accepted that, we will accept the implications for Fylingdales and go ahead, hoping that we can perhaps limit the national missile defence system—although I fear that, rather like the housemaid's baby, although it is only small now it has the capacity to grow? Will we say, at the cost of enormous disruption and causing a great clash between ourselves and our United States allies, that we share the scepticism of a number of allies on the continent and will not allow Fylingdales to be used because we are looking at a wider basis and we see how the whole strategic balance could be jeopardised?
The Government hope that they will not have to face that problem, but alas they may have to if, as I fear, the drive on Capitol hill and within the Administration is unstoppable, if there is a Republican victory in the presidential elections in November, and if the Russians refuse to play the game and extract the best bargain that they can by agreeing to limited modifications of the ABM treaty.
It is true that some forces on Capitol hill say that the treaty is dead already because it was signed in 1972 between the United States and the former Soviet Union. They say that, although the Russian Federation is in most cases the successor state to the Soviet Union, so many other countries have been excluded from that federation that the treaty is no longer valid. Perhaps those forces on the hill will become very much stronger if there is a Republican victory in November.
Mr. Savidge: I intervened on the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) precisely because of that particular view on the Republican side of the Senate. Although I was concerned when the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Soviet Union, I now realise that he simply made a slip of the tongue and was not wishing to be identified with that particular Republican view.
Mr. Anderson: I shall conclude my speech speedily.
The world is very different now from what it was in 1989, and the pressures in the defence sphere are wholly changed. We have now to consider matters such as flexibility, inter-operability, new alliances and new forms of threat. In every way, we shall have to be creative in adjusting to those changes.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife dealt with the concept of intervention for humanitarian purposes. I am glad that the United Kingdom is seeking to build a consensus in the United Nations on the conditions in which such interventions might occur.
354
However, I think that there will never be such a consensus. National interests—particularly those of China in Tibet, and those of Russia in Chechnya and the other Caucasus republics—will ensure that there is no consensus on the matter in the United Nations. Nevertheless, the search is worth while.
Sir Winston Churchill frequently made the point that the Chinese character denoting crisis was actually composed of two characters, one designating danger and the other opportunity. Dangers there are aplenty, and they will arise in different forms—such as weapons of mass destruction, new forms of terrorism, ease of access to chemical and biological weapons, and the types of weapons that have been used in the Tokyo underground. Putting aside the threat of ballistic missiles, it is easy for a terrorist to operate in a city street or for a ship to approach the United States coast and penetrate its proposed defence shield. It would be far cheaper to try to civilise North Korea than to develop weaponry that may be wholly destabilising and serves only a domestic political purpose.
Those are some of the dangers. However, opportunities, too, are available—to adjust to a new role, not to be stuck in the past, and creatively to try with our allies to create a safer world.
4.33 pm
Sir John Stanley: It seems to be my allotted station in the House to follow in the wake of my Foreign Affairs Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Swansea. East (Mr. Anderson), and I am delighted to do so once again. I wish to raise four issues and shall endeavour to make the shortest speech so far in the debate. I want briefly to deal with nuclear proliferation, particularly in relation to Russia; the American national missile defence programme; biological weapons; and the land mines convention.
Like the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), I was very encouraged, and indeed somewhat surprised, by the events that have occurred in recent weeks in Moscow. Those of us who went to Moscow in the months after the ending of the Kosovo war and spoke to a wide range of political opinion in Russia were left in no doubt whatever about the vitriolic sense of injustice among a complete cross-section of political opinion in Moscow about NATO's involvement in the Kosovo war. Although I regard that sense of injustice as being wholly misplaced, one could not in any way deny the strength of feeling against NATO at that time. The feeling seemed to be very prejudicial to the likelihood of the Duma's ratification of START 2 or the comprehensive test ban treaty.
It is excellent that, in the past few weeks, those two crucial arms control treaties have been ratified by the Duma. That action puts in even more disappointing relief the failure of the United States Senate, so far, to ratify the CTBT. However, ratification by the Russians of those two very important arms control treaties still leaves some very major nuclear proliferation issues in relation to Russia.
The first issue that I want to address is that created by the quite staggering scale of the stockpile of nuclear fissile material still inside Russia. With other Foreign Affairs Committee members, I was fortunate quite recently to be briefed on the matter by the senior official responsible in the United States Department of Energy. Although I

355
cannot recall whether the figures, in metric tonnes, that we were given on the size of the stockpile were classified, simply to illustrate the scale of the remaining problem I shall deal with the matter in terms of cost. The public figure for the estimated cost of converting the Russian plutonium stockpile into mixed oxide fuel is estimated to be $1.5 billion. On top of that is the whole issue of the destruction of Russia's highly enriched uranium.
Not unreasonably, the US Government feel that, as the whole of western security is involved in trying to remove that stockpile, or at least certainly in reducing it very substantially indeed, Europe should be making some contribution towards the cost. I think that that is a very reasonable proposition, as the issue relates directly to our own security. I should be grateful if the Minister, in his reply, could give us any view that he can on whether the British Government, with our European NATO partners and European Union member partners, are willing to contemplate making a contribution to the cost of the conversion of plutonium into mixed oxide fuel, which entails de-weaponising it. Are the British Government prepared to make such a contribution and to seek one from our European partners?
The second aspect of proliferation from Russia to which I should like to refer is the still acute danger of nuclear material being smuggled out of Russia. Although that material is probably not in fissile form, it could perhaps be so converted. On that, I noticed a very disturbing and considerably detailed report in The Sunday Telegraph on 23 April on the interception of 10 lead-lined containers being moved from Kazakhstan to Uzbekistan. The containers were intercepted after being detected as radioactive. The incident certainly raises the issue of the danger of nuclear material being smuggled out.
The US Administration have been very exercised about the issue and have given practical help in making available to several customs authorities in those areas portable devices for detecting radioactivity. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what action the British Government are taking to try to assist the Americans and our other NATO allies in helping the Russian Government with the very serious problem of the illegal leaching out of potential nuclear materials, some of which, it is reported, may be on their way to terrorist groups, such as that of bin Laden.
I want to deal with the United States national missile defence programme, which has been referred to, rightly, by almost every speaker in the debate so far. It is a dominant defence policy issue in the United States and deserves to be given a higher profile here as it is a major defence and arms control issue.
There has been some attempt inside the US Administration and elsewhere to represent this as a relatively minor modification to the existing ABM treaty. The phase 1 plan of the NMD could be construed as a relatively minor modification. It is a transfer of the American entitlement of 100 ABM interceptors, as allowed under the treaty, from the national capital to Alaska. However, phase 1 is a prelude to phase 2, on which we received a valuable briefing in Washington. Phase 2 involves, in numerical and geographical deployment terms, much more widespread deployment of ABM interceptors. As I have said, phase 1 of NMD could be presented as a modification of the existing treaty, but
356
there is no doubt that phase 2 effectively means a tearing up of the existing treaty and having no treaty at all, or putting in place a fundamentally different one.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does that include the United States sharing the use of Fylingdales with us? Would that mean tearing up the ABM treaty? I would have thought not.
Sir John Stanley: Phase 1 involves a material modification of the existing treaty which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) knows, allows the deployment of 100 interceptors around the two national capitals. The major modification is represented by the Americans being allowed to transfer their allocation to Alaska. As I understand it, phase 2 would be quite different. It would involve a much greater number of interceptors being deployed much more widely in the continental United States. I will come to the Fylingdales dimension in a moment.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State set out the Government's position on NMD. I listened carefully to him and he exposed a fundamental contradiction in the Government's position. That has been revealed clearly in the different way that questions have been answered by Foreign Office Ministers and Defence Ministers. For example, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), answered a question on 11 April on the Government's position on NMD and said:
We have made it clear to both sides that we wish to see the anti-ballistic missile treaty preserved.—[Official Report, II April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 185]
That is the clearly stated view of the Foreign Office. However, the preservation of the ABM treaty is incompatible with any move towards NMD. There is no way that NMD can be accommodated within the terms of the existing treaty.
Remarkably, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was given a different view in an answer from the Secretary of State for Defence on 21 March. My hon. Friend asked
what recent discussions his Department has had with the United States regarding a European-wide ballistic missile defence system.
The Secretary of State said:
We will continue to consult closely with the US and take account of the work they are doing, to help us take an informed decision on whether to acquire such a capability ourselves in the future.—[Official Report, 21 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 491W]
The Secretary of State for Defence is holding out the defence policy option of acquiring Europeanwide ballistic missile defence. There is no way that holding out that option can be compatible with adherence to the existing ABM treaty. It is obvious that the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are sticking to their respective wording. The Secretary of State faithfully repeated both lots of wording from the Dispatch Box today, but the two are incompatible. The Government are obligated to take a public position on this major issue. They must sort themselves out and decide whether they are prepared for the ABM treaty to be modified to accommodate NMD.
On Fylingdales, there is a direct and inescapable British involvement in the NMD issue because, for NMD to proceed, including phase one, there will need to be a major software upgrade at Fylingdales. I thought that the Secretary of State was being disingenuous this afternoon

357
when he said, blandly, from the Dispatch Box that we had received no approach from the United States about Fylingdales. The use of Fylingdales has been announced in any number of US Government press releases, and MOD and Foreign Office officials in Washington have been discussing with the US Administration the Fylingdales dimension. It would be surprising if they had not, given that it is in the public domain in the United States, as it is here. For the Secretary of State to say that we have received no approach and that, therefore, it is not an issue for us is not fair to the House.
Open and active dialogue is taking place now and the Government will have to decide whether they are prepared to tell the Americans that they cannot do the software upgrade, or that they will turn a blind eye while they get on with it, or that they can go ahead because it will he useful for us and will enable us to keep open the option of Europeanwide ballistic missile deployment. Those will be the policy issues and the Government cannot shirk them.
On biological weapons, I agree with what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. As we move ahead in the 21st century, of the three forms of weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical and biological—it is biological weapons that give me the greatest concern and fear for the future. As we all know, biological weapons are relatively easy to manufacture and are extremely difficult to detect. They have relative ease of delivery and their capacity to kill on a vast scale is appalling. On that issue, I believe that the Government have been right to be more explicit and detailed than any previous Government. It is a serious issue and although, understandably, successive previous Governments, both Conservative and Labour, have been worried about causing public anxiety, it is incumbent upon the Government, given the degree of risk, to say something officially about the dangers.
I need go no further than what the Foreign Secretary said in the context of Iraq in the paper that he placed in the Library on 4 February 1998. That unclassified paper said:
One hundred kilogrammes of anthrax released from the top of a tall building in a densely populated area could kill up to three million people.
It is right and responsible for the Government to place such information in the public domain. It raises serious civil defence issues.
I was amazed when the Secretary of State said that home defence is no longer an issue. Perhaps he was thinking of the second world war Home Guard, but to suggest that the need for home defence has disappeared is, frankly, extraordinary. I hope that he will clarify what he meant.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): If the right hon. Gentleman had listened a little more carefully, he would have realised that my right hon. Friend was talking about a large-scale conventional threat, which every defence expert recognises is no longer relevant.
Sir John Stanley: I am grateful for that clarification. That was the construction that I put on what the Secretary of State said, but it is extremely important that he and his Department appreciate that our armed forces have a great responsibility in the matter.
358
For obvious reasons, I do not expect any detail, but I hope that the Minister will assure the House that serious steps have been taken to provide the relevant elements of our armed forces with the training, specialist equipment and resources that will be needed to respond with total effectiveness should the civil authorities ever call for assistance because intelligence has been received that a biological attack on an urban part of this country is contemplated. I will fully understand if he responds only in general terms.
I very much welcome our ratification of the Ottawa convention, which built on the important preparatory work done under the previous Government, but the position is extremely unsatisfactory because none of the world's three largest holders of anti-personnel land mines—the United States, Russia and China—has yet ratified it. Following extensive discussions in the United States, I understand that the problem it has with ratifying stems from its concerns about the possible adverse implications for its anti-tank mines, which incorporate anti-personnel devices as a standard feature—as do runway denial weapons, in which our armed forces have an important capability.
I recently tabled a question to the Secretary of State asking whether we had any problem with signing the Ottawa convention in relation to either anti-tank mines or runway denial weapons. He said:
In accordance with our obligations under the Ottawa Convention and the Landmines Act 1998, the Government's policy is not to use any weapon incorporating anti-personnel mines as defined in the Ottawa Convention. This obligation extends to airfield runway denial weapons and anti-tank land mines, and the UK does not retain stocks of any such weapons which contravene the Ottawa Convention.—[Official Report, 14 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 295W.]
If the United Kingdom can sign up, why is it such a problem for the United States? It is a matter of some embarrassment that our major NATO partner has not so far been able to ratify the convention.
I fully understand that Ministers at the Dispatch Box are paid to put the best possible face on a situation, but I hope that the Secretary of State, in the privacy of his Department, is less complacent about the state of our defences in relation to our commitments than appeared from his speech today. The evidence is overwhelming that our forces are hugely overstretched and that there is real doubt whether, if a conflict of any intensity arose, they would have anything like sufficient resources to sustain combat effectiveness for any material length of time.
The amber light is flashing in terms of our defence capabilities, and it is high time that the Government recognised that.
4.57 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: I shall endeavour to be brief, because several other hon. Members have been waiting some hours to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The title of this debate is wide ranging. It is global in its reach, much like our armed forces. That is not to say that we have a regiment in every country in the world, but few countries have no presence of UK armed forces personnel acting in some capacity or other. I support the earlier comments by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other hon. Members about the unarmed British soldier serving with the United Nations in Sierra Leone. I, too, hope that he and the others taken captive will be released safely.

359
I shall discuss a few domestic issues surrounding our armed forces and our defence policy, and then touch on a couple of issues of wider concern, including briefly on Europe and national missile defence, which have already been well covered. I wish also to say a little more about the vital aspect of developing the peacekeeping role of military and civilian organisations.
I start by paying tribute to our armed forces, because they are second to none. I am constantly reminded, in my contact with military and civilian personnel from other countries, just how highly regarded British armed forces are worldwide. One small indication of that high regard took place last month, when an RAF pilot, Flight Lieutenant Ian Walton, was presented with the Croix de Guerre by the French Government. That high honour was presented because of his heroic actions while serving with the French air force during the Kosovo crisis last year. It is the responsibility of every hon. Member and every citizen in the United Kingdom to do all that we can to maintain our armed forces' reputation by ensuring that they have the support, training and equipment they need to maintain high standards and morale.
As the Member of Parliament for a constituency that contains Crombie, HMS Caledonia and Rosyth dockyard, I pay tribute to all the civilian and service personnel involved in those establishments. As the representative of a constituency with a long naval and maritime tradition, I especially welcome the Government's announcement in the SDR that they are committed to the largest programme of new warship construction since the second world war. I put on record my welcome for the fact that military vessels will continue to be built by UK shipyards and that the vital importance of that shipbuilding capacity has been recognised. I want to see a future for our shipyards on the Clyde, in Northern Ireland and in England, and I trust that ship refitting work will continue to come to Rosyth dockyard in the future.
I welcome the establishment of the Defence Diversification Agency in its Scottish base at Rosyth. It is attached to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and I examined with great interest the Government's latest proposals for that agency and a public-private partnership. I take the points that hon. Members have already made about the importance of research, innovation and intelligence in future armed conflicts. I have already arranged to discuss the latest proposals with the highly skilled personnel at DERA in Rosyth, and I welcome the fact that the Government seem to have listened to some of the concerns about how the public-private partnership proposals could affect our special relationship with the US, in terms of research and development and intelligence work. I know that concerns have already been expressed by the Defence Committee on the latest proposals and I shall follow those with interest.
It is vital that we recognise the influence that our armed forces have in world affairs and peacekeeping. If we want Britain to continue to play a leading role in world affairs, we must ensure that our armed forces have the strength in numbers to remain a leading player in peacekeeping, defence diplomacy, crisis management and prevention, and the development of democratic, accountable and professional armed forces, especially in central and eastern Europe.
360
British armed forces have been essential to the success of the Partnership for Peace process that was developed through NATO. It has paid off time and again, particularly in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina and later in Kosovo. It is worth noting that Partnership for Peace has extended co-operation to 25 non-NATO countries and is fostering contact in the defence support community. Developing co-operation with non-NATO countries in Europe that share NATO's objectives, and engaging them in political and military efforts help to promote Euro-Atlantic security and the enlargement of NATO and the EU.
One of the key ways in which British armed forces have promoted peace, security and democracy worldwide is through the British military advisory and training teams. I mention in particular the major training team initiative that is to be established in the Czech Republic this year and will be open to personnel from all countries of central and eastern Europe.
Let me turn to some of the challenges of peacekeeping. Kosovo has highlighted that it is not always easy exactly to define and draw lines between the roles of military and civilian personnel. Situations such as that in Kosovo involve a multitude of civilian and military organisations as well as various national commands and political interests. We are also trying to enforce and develop peace in a country that has never really had the civilian infrastructure of law and order that we take for granted. We have to continue to address that. I welcome the intention that the Government have flagged up in respect of creating a new centre of peacekeeping excellence where we can share our skills in peacekeeping with other countries.
As I have already been speaking for 10 minutes, let me briefly refer to the threats from terrorism, rogue states and nuclear, chemical and biological warfare. I agree with many of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and the importance that they place on British forces being a force for good.
Mention has also been made of the concern that co-operation between countries such as Iraq and Serbia could lead to the possible development of nuclear weapons. We all recognise the increasing risk from terrorists and extremist militia. It is only right that this debate is taking place in a week when we are finally seeing the start of the Lockerbie trial. Along with other hon. Members, let me express my deep sympathy to the families who experienced such a dreadful and unimaginable horror and outrage committed by terrorists from another country, and the hope that justice will be done.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) mentioned some recent examples of the smuggling of nuclear material in connection with Uzbekistan. There are real worries about the vulnerability of the former Soviet Union's nuclear stockpile to those who wish to develop illicit nuclear weapons. I hope that the Government will show that they are doing everything possible to encourage international regulation and policing of that material.
Concern has also been expressed about the volatility of the situation with regard to North Korea. Only last year, it seemed to be threatening to rain destruction on neighbouring states, yet it could just as easily descend into violent internal upheaval. The reading that I have done

361
included the beneficial reminder that the demilitarised zone between the Republic of Korea and North Korea is now the world's most heavily fortified border, and that 37,000 US troops are still stationed there.
On national missile defence, I can understand the great unease felt in the US about the possibility that rogue states, such as North Korea and others, could mount an attack. However, I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who were worried that the development of NMD could set back some of the more positive recent initiatives, such as Russia's ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty and of START 2.
Another positive move has been the welcome announcement by North Korea and the Republic of Korea that they will seek to hold a summit next month to discuss peace and reconciliation. It is clear, therefore, that many issues need to be finely balanced.
We have had a very useful debate on the development of a European security and defence identity and of a common European foreign and security policy. Those matters have been well set out by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East. I shall not go over them again, but I sincerely believe that America is right to demand that—to put the matter bluntly—Europe should put its money where its mouth is and increase its defence capability. If we can deliver on that, I hope that it will strengthen the US-European alliance and NATO.
In 1948, Winston Churchill said that no foreign policy can have validity if there is no adequate force behind it and no national readiness to make the necessary sacrifices to produce that force. Some things have not changed, and I hope that all Government Departments will recognise the importance of that statement. In the 21st century, we have great opportunities and responsibilities. What we achieve in Britain and Europe can be a force for good in the world, and I hope that the Government will be a leading partner. I want Europe to be strong, but committed to economic reform, social justice and security in the 21st century.
That would mark the dawning of a new age and would be a fitting tribute to the millions in the previous century who lost their lives fighting for the peace, freedom and justice that we tend, all too often, to take for granted.
5.14 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I agree with much that was said by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire). I shall refer to some of her comments later—especially those on the training of soldiers in peacekeeping.
I am wearing my gunner tie as a signal to Members on the Treasury Bench—although I do not intend to aim any pot shots at them. I hope to range widely and constructively in the true tradition of an artillery man.
We must acknowledge that the European security and defence identity is a sensitive issue. I do not propose to scrub it. I am not a Europhobe, but there are genuine reasons why we should be careful that such initiatives on
362
the continent of Europe—taken by members of the European Union—do not undermine the solidarity of NATO.
I am an Atlanticist; I believe that the strength of NATO is fundamental. Europe should play its proper part; it should not decouple its effort. If that were to occur, it would undermine the basis of the defence structure that has helped to keep the peace during the most difficult period in modern history and that will help to contain the peace and the wider security of the world in the future. To allow that relationship to be destroyed or undermined on political grounds would be wrong.
We hear many conflicting statements on that matter from people on the continent, as I have discovered in the course of my NATO and parliamentary work. Some of those statements are most alarming. We should make no mistake about that. Many people envy America; they want a separate chain of command and want gradually to make that a reality by building up their forces.
Nothing is more certain than uncertainty—as we have been reminded during the debate. I shall concentrate on two aspects of the post-cold war period that have led to new threats to our security. The first is the growth in missiles, which has been much discussed.
In a previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who is a rapporteur for the Western European Union Assembly, drew our attention to his report on transatlantic co-operation on ballistic missile defence. He referred in some detail to the threats posed by countries such as Iraq and Iran, which possess that capability. Furthermore, about 35 non-NATO countries also have ballistic missiles—18 of them are capable of installing nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological warheads.
As a nation that suffered from the use of Exocet missiles during the Falklands war, we should be especially conscious of the fact that such missiles pose a new and growing threat. Action must be taken. Cruise missiles are already possessed by 67 countries. We must realise that such missiles, in the hands of countries outside NATO. bring the capital cities of western Europe within the range of those countries—including Libya and the others that I mentioned. We should also bear in mind that China has stolen much of the technology of the United States.
It is useless to pretend that the situation remains as it was when the anti-ballistic missile treaty was signed and when we began START 1, 2 and 3. There has been a change. It is only sensible to have regard for the concerns expressed by our American allies and friends.
Recently, Mr. Solana, formerly the Secretary-General of NATO, who now holds a position in the EU, said:
If we were not to be defended by the United States, that may risk the beginning of "decoupling".
He pointed out that the American national missile defence system must not "strain trans-Atlantic links" nor provoke a "major crisis with Russia". Fair enough—of course it must not, but that is why we are concerned.
Although it has not been reported here, the United States has made it clear to the former Soviet Union that, if national missile defence were to be installed in the United States and extended to Europe, the former Soviet Union could benefit from such an arrangement as the facilities could be provided to it as well. It is a highly debatable and emotional issue, but we do not want the

363
initiative to spoil the Atlantic alliance. Therefore, we should treat with respect the concerns of our American allies.
Another aspect of the crisis was not anticipated when the cold war ended. It has nothing to do with what I have just said, but concerns matters such as trade wars. The United States and the European Union are engaged in a trade war of a kind and, on more than one occasion, relationships have been severely strained. This aspect of the problem may also explain why the streets of London were visited by—words fail me when I try to describe them—those who despoiled the statue of Winston Churchill, marched up Whitehall and destroyed some shops at the end of it. It is hard to believe that such people could take the law into their own hands—I do not condone them for a moment—on an issue such as trade wars or on the economic difficulties that developing countries in Asia and elsewhere are experiencing. However, some countries do not believe that they have been treated as well as they should have been by western business institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, which has assumed greater and new responsibilities and found itself in the business of doling out advice on banking, privatisation and taxes. Its mandate has accordingly expanded well beyond balance-of-payments issues.
The World Bank—which has also been a source of protests in Seattle and elsewhere—has also made corporate governance, corrupt governance and corruption its top priorities, so the relationship between developed countries and undeveloped and poorer countries has been extended in that way. Therefore, when the improvement in the economies of those countries declines, corruption increases and poverty does not seem to be alleviated, it is little wonder that they put the blame on the western institutions which they believe are mainly at fault. We can deny that and I certainly would. However, one can understand that, if the export of capitalism as they understand it is linked to the growing recession and corruption in those countries, it is only too easy to blame the west.
The development of a global economy therefore will pose new risks to our security as well as that of undeveloped countries unless it is handled tactfully, properly and honourably. Should there be an outbreak of disorder in such countries, we should be able to help to stabilise those areas. That can be done. First, if there is likely to be an outbreak of serious military disturbance, we should respond quickly. That means not only using military force to help the Government who are in office from being subverted, but recognising the threat so that units of what we would describe as the police forces of the countries concerned can be deployed.
As I know from personal experience—the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West referred to this—the training of British troops for peacekeeping duties is first class. I doubt whether any nation has spent so much time and trouble ensuring that such a degree of confidence can be held in its military arm when it is patrolling a foreign town or village. When people see our troops wearing their uniform, carrying a rifle or travelling in an armoured vehicle, they are confident that our forces will not pull the trigger or run over the kids or old ladies trying to cross the street.
Our forces are capable of great restraint. They are capable of doing things that a soldier would not be expected to perform—for example, helping someone
364
across a street. Some soldiers would not consider that to be part of their duties. They are prepared to carry food and things of that sort. These humane qualities are engrained in the training of a British soldier, who will recognise that there are those occasions in areas of great disturbance when he should behave more like a friendly policeman. We know, however, that a friendly policeman cannot do the soldier's job. At the same time, there are police forces that are well trained when we are not so concerned with the application of military force. For example, the gendarmerie of France and the carabinieri of Italy have quasi-military training.
If we are to reduce the stress and the stretch on our forces when they are involved in peacekeeping or peacemaking activities—especially peacekeeping—we should recognise that they can and should be reinforced by police from our reserves and resources who are trained to deal with situations in foreign countries. It is something that deserves more attention.
We are facing more responsibilities ourselves. We are placing the burden on our defence forces and running into trouble far too quickly when disturbances result from trade disputes, rather than giving competence to the afflicted Government concerned, because we do not have forces that can respond as necessary before the troubles turn into outright conflict of a military sort. I am talking about the sort of problem that we used to understand when we faced it in some of our former colonies.
That is why I respect the view of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) when he said that we should devote more of our time internationally to seeing whether we can get agreement on the sort of forces that we deploy and how quickly they can be deployed. If these matters are not dealt with thoroughly and humanely, they will lead to more insurrection and more trouble, which will threaten the security of the countries concerned and of the United Kingdom.
This is one way in which we can begin to restore confidence with Russia. There were moments during the Kosovo conflict when things looked rather hairy. There have also been moments when a mutual trust has been engendered, certainly at military level. I noticed that at NATO headquarters. The trouble is that that trust is not extended to the Duma. It is in those areas of joint arrangements with Russia—in matters of peacekeeping, peacemaking and trade—that we can begin to sow the seeds of mutual confidence that has been lacking so far. It is vital that we do so in the next few years if we are to arrive at greater understanding.
5.29 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: The strategic defence review correctly tried to base defence policy on foreign policy—we could hardly have a better expression of intent in the present world than the one given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—on making the world a better and safer place. Central to that is the question of weapons of mass destruction. It is an issue of enormous importance and it is pleasing that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is considering it. We have had the benefit from that in the valuable contributions to the debate from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and from the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley).

365
It is clear that the basis of the Government's policy on weapons of mass destruction is that of arms control. For example, there is our commitment to the test ban treaty, nuclear safeguards, biological and chemical weapons conventions, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, START 3 and our commitment to enter into an arms reduction process when we feel it appropriate to do so. In response to a remark by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my memory of what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said on 24 January was that he reiterated that basic policy. It is a policy that probably is the subject of general agreement or consensus on both sides of the House.
In this brief contribution I want to concentrate on one vital issue, which I believe could undermine that policy. That issue, which has been repeatedly referred to, is national missile defence. I suspect that there may be divergent views within parties on both sides of the House, and hon. Members' remarks have hinted at that. It is correct for us to debate that subject because although it could be said to be a matter for the United States—and for Russia, in that it may affect the anti-ballistic missile treaty, which was originally a bilateral treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union—I believe that there are legitimate concerns for Britain. I shall give three main reasons for that.
First, there are legitimate concerns that NMD could undermine our whole arms control posture. Secondly, Britain obviously could be used as a surveillance base at Menwith and Fylingdales. In addition, The Sunday Times made the suggestion, although I do not know whether it has any foundation, that we might be requested to have interceptor launch sites in British territory. Thirdly, as the Defence Secretary has said, there is the possibility of Britain or NATO looking at the feasibility of missile defence.
The United States says that it is acquiring the system because of the risk posed by rogue states, namely the danger of unstable dictators acquiring nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and rocket delivery systems. At present, there are almost certainly some states that we would class in that category which have or are close to obtaining crude forms of nuclear weapons and, possibly, crude delivery systems. One thinks particularly of present information about North Korea.
Some people in the United States have suggested that those nations have missiles that are capable of long-distance flights, but I think that it is questionable. Given that crude nuclear weapons tend to be heavy, it is reasonable to doubt that crude delivery systems would be capable of delivering them. Clearly, however, it is possible to imagine that within the next decade or so, some of those states could develop more sophisticated systems.
Even if we were to reach a situation in which one of those states was able to launch crude but probably untested nuclear weapons on crude but probably untested rocket delivery systems, should we, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) suggested, believe that they would readily attempt to attack the United States and would not be deterred by the
366
knowledge that the US possesses several thousand such missiles? When the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was pressing his point about the dangers posed by such states, he seemed to be implying that no deterrent exists in the United States or other members of NATO.
To launch such an attack would be suicidal. Can one rule out the possibility that a suicidal maniac could gain control of nuclear weapons? No, one cannot, but in a world where nuclear weapons have been invented, there is no such thing as absolute security. We have to live with different balances and levels of risk. What frightens me in this case is that we may, out of fear of wanting to counter one threat, increase a greater and more dangerous threat without removing the original threat.
Even if NMD proves to be technologically possible, which is still questionable, it will, as has already been said, provide no protection against the device brought into a country on a lorry, by boat or in a suitcase. Such a device could be used not only by a rogue state, but by a terrorist organisation against which deterrence would not be feasible.
The concern about NMD is that it could undermine the anti-ballistic missile treaty, particularly, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) indicated, if phase 2 is introduced. However, even phase 1 could undermine the treaty.
There is concern about the views expressed by some defence commentators in the United States, especially right-wing members of the Republican party—the people who are sometimes described as unilateralists or aggressive isolationists. They have said that they would be prepared unilaterally to abrogate the ABM treaty. If they did so, they would undermine both the basis for all treaties and all confidence and trust in the United States—especially if a Republican Administration reneged on a treaty that was originally introduced by a Republican president, Richard Nixon. If it happened, there would have to be grave concern that Russia and China would believe that NMD was directed not at rogue states but at themselves. They would cease to believe any promises that were made, because if one Administration could renege on another's promises, how could they be sure that future Administrations would not do the same?
We could end up involved, once again, in a dangerous arms race. As the shadow Defence Secretary said, nuclear proliferation is already frightening; it would become far more worrying if it were to accelerate. I am surprised that, when talking about the 1980s, the hon. Gentleman did not think of another lesson from that time. At the time the Americans were considering SDI—the strategic defence initiative—Baroness Thatcher and Lord Howe argued that it would be dangerous, precisely because it would undermine the entire arms control regime.
In that context, I was relieved when, yesterday, during the nuclear non-proliferation review conference, the five recognised nuclear states—the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—issued a joint statement in which they stated their belief in preserving and strengthening the ABM treaty. I trust that that implies that the current US Administration are committed at least to negotiating with Russia on an ABM treaty before considering the introduction of NMD.
Even if that were to be done, I hope that serious consideration would be given to Chinese perceptions: there are clear indications that China is gravely concerned

367
about the threat of NMD and is considering the possibility of increasing its nuclear stockpiles. I hope that the views of all other states would be taken into account. It is noticeable that, at the nuclear non-proliferation treaty discussions, the vast majority of states have expressed concern about NMD. NMD is not worth while if all it does is create destabilisation and thereby reduces our safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East asked what if the Americans were to go ahead with NMD without ensuring that the arms control regime was preserved? What should Britain's response to our American allies be if they start asking us for either the use of surveillance posts, or launch pads for interceptor missiles? In the first instance, that might appear to be an extremely unattractive bargain: remember, national missile defence is so called because it was intended only to provide cover for the United States of America.
Even though, when the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green suggested that North Korea would be wildly keen to attack the United Kingdom with nuclear weapons, one has to wonder why North Korea—or any other state that is feared to have developed nuclear capability—should be keen to do so. One must acknowledge that, if we were to help with NMD, the risk of the areas involved becoming targets would clearly be increased. Therefore, helping might be a rather unattractive option for the north of Yorkshire.
Of course, the United States might offer to extend the cover of NMD to Britain, or that there would be additional jobs created in the localities, or that lucrative contracts might benefit other parts of Britain. When the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke of operational and commercial benefits, that might have been what he meant. However, it would be a poor deal if we were trading off against such benefits the safety of our people and our planet.
Would NMD work? The past record of interception systems is poor. We all remember George Bush saying—I do not recall the exact numbers, so I will guess at them—that the Patriot missiles managed to down 41 out of 43 Scuds. Later, a congressional inquiry suggested that the number downed was much lower. No clear evidence could be produced that even one Scud had been successfully intercepted. The U.S. Defence Department said that it had managed to get its missiles to explode near the Scuds, even if it did not manage to bring them down. In the event of an in-coming nuclear missile, I would find that rather cold comfort.
So far, the tests that have been done on national missile defence have been unsuccessful. It is thought that the only successful interception occurred by a fluke. The main first series of tests will not close before 2001. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to say that the matter should be subject to "calm and measured debate".
I fear, however, that as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East suggested, that is not happening in the US at present. Instead, there is hype, vested interests, what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, the possibility of multimillion dollar contracts, and the possibility of pork barrel politics, during a period of election campaigning. That is a dangerous time and a dangerous way for these matters to be discussed.
I realise that the influence that the United Kingdom can have on the United States is limited, and that private rather than megaphone diplomacy is needed. The point
368
made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that we can be "critical and constructive partners" was valid. I hope that we will try to use what influence we can on the United States to discourage precipitate action on the matter, and to encourage the "calm and measured" debate to which the Secretary of State referred.
The dangers from proliferation are vast and real. It is tempting to think that there can be some simple, single, magical, technological solution, but I fear that it is a complex issue, where solutions may be complex, multiple, mostly diplomatic and highly imperfect. In a world where nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented, absolute security may no longer be possible. In trying to pursue the dream of absolute security, it would be folly to throw away the only real, albeit limited and tenuous, security that we have.
5.42 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: We have had a timely debate, if not a well-timed one, as the pre-occupations of most hon. Members are understandably elsewhere. However, the debate is timely in view of the situation around the globe, which makes it plain that the use of military power or the threat of its application is still a key determinant in human affairs.
We see that in the case of Northern Ireland. Our Prime Minister is over in Belfast and must spend a great deal of time on the so-called peace process because the continued possession of armaments by the Irish Republican Army has thwarted the devolution process in a part of our own kingdom. We have seen the application of systematic military power in Chechnya and scorched earth tactics employed by the Russian Federation. We have seen the sabre-rattling against the Taiwanese by the People's Republic of China, and Muslim insurgency in the Philippines currently affecting western tourists.
There is tension and conflict in Kashmir and civil war in the Congo. The situation in Iraq is such that we have to maintain no-fly zones over the northern and southern parts of that country. There are British nationals at risk in Zimbabwe, whom it may become necessary to extricate.
If we look at the scene around the world, it is clearly crucial for the United Kingdom to maintain a war-fighting capability. Anything less would be wholly irresponsible. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Defence laid emphasis on three aspects of our global commitments. He emphasised the need, first, for expeditionary warfare capability, secondly, for a capacity to conduct effective coalition operations, and, thirdly, for the European defence initiative, about which we can argue for some time to come.
The European Helsinki council target to be able to put into the field between 50,000 and 60,000 men by the year 2003, to be deployable within a time scale of two or three months, inspires no confidence. Every major crisis in recent years has required the application of military force at the crucial point in a much shorter time scale. There is no sign that the European countries are prepared to make the dispositions either of men, material or resources to make valid the commitment that was undertaken at Helsinki.
In this connection, it is more crucial than ever that this intergovernmental commitment, as it was rightly described by the Secretary of State, should be underpinned by a European defence and security assembly, which is

369
intergovernmental in its nature in as much as its members are drawn from national Parliaments and able to put pressure on their national Governments.
Therefore, following the unanimous decision of the WEU Assembly in Lisbon that the European defence and security assembly should continue in an interim form on the basis of the WEU Assembly, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will explicitly, clearly and unequivocally support the wish of the WEU Assembly to see itself transformed into the European defence and security assembly, and that the role should not be usurped by the European Parliament on the one hand, or just forgotten on the other.
Many hon. Members in today's debate have correctly stressed the importance of sustainability in operations around the world, and they have cited, for example, the National Audit Office's report on the situation in the Kosovo war when our air forces very nearly ran out of ordnance. If anything can clearly be seen, it is that in the future such overseas operations will have an element of unpredictability with which to contend.
Take the state of affairs today when no fewer than 44 Royal Navy Lynx and 21 Army Lynx helicopters have had to be grounded because of fatigue in the rotor heads. In the Gulf war, sand filters had to be installed in the engines of the Lynx helicopters to enable them to operate in the terrain. Also in the Gulf war, the serviceability rate of the Challenger I tanks' engines was abysmal.
We should also remember the effect of delays on entry into service. For example, the delay in the mid-life update of the Tornado led to Harrier aircraft having to be used in the initial stages of the Kosovo war when the preference would have been for Tornados.
If we plan for a logistic support system based on the principle of just-in-time, the likelihood is that, in reality, it will be just too late for the armed forces in the field to obtain the spares and the supplies that they so badly need.
I understand the rationale for the Treasury to require a second look at certain key procurement programmes. As has been argued in the debate, with such small armed forces at our disposition in the UK, it will be crucial for expeditionary warfare to be conducted effectively that they be properly equipped.
Big decisions have been put on hold—in particular the SDR commitment for the Royal Air Force to obtain a short-term heavy lift capacity. The Antonov 124/100 aircraft offers twice the payload and twice the fuselage volume at half the price of the American C-17.
To put it simply, one Antonov 124/100 aircraft took the four Puma helicopters to southern Africa to deal with the emergency caused by the Mozambique floods in one sortie. The operation would have required two C-17s. The cost of chartering the Antonov aircraft was just over £200,000; it would probably have cost more than £1 million to charter two C-17s from the United States air force. The cost-effectiveness as well as the capability advantages of the Antonov are therefore significant, especially in view of the future pressures on the defence budgets that we can already foretell.
Those pressures will have to be tackled at a time when defence expenditure is unlikely to increase in line with inflation. Continuing cuts in real-terms defence
370
expenditure are likely. It is difficult to envisage the Treasury abandoning the efficiency savings that it is currently imposing on the Ministry of Defence.
It is crucial that big procurement decisions on heavy lift and the air-to-air missile for the Eurofighter are carefully assessed and wisely made. The Treasury is right to ask for reconsideration of both programmes. An incremental development programme for the air-to-air missile for the Eurofighter was part of the smart procurement process. Hence the attraction of the Raytheon missile, based on enhancement of the existing advanced medium-range air-to-air missile, as opposed to the more futuristic—and perhaps riskier—Meteor missile. It is especially attractive given the gap between the entry into service of the Eurofighter in about 2005 and the availability of an effective air-to-air missile for it. The gap is wider in the case of Meteor than in that of Raytheon. We are therefore considering important decisions.
We must also be aware of the overall context of the industrial policy in which decisions are made. The Treasury has provided £500 million of launch aid for the A3XX airbus. This is the biggest single example of such loan finance in recent years. Is it wise to invest more development funding in the A400M military version of the airbus when the C-130J is coming into service? A second tranche of C-130Js could be procured at a much lower cost than the A400M airbus. That would enable Royal Air Force expeditionary operations to field two types of aircraft.
The Antonov could be flown by Air Foyle or a similar civil operator with reservist crews, with the aircraft on a military register—or not, as required. It can be backed up by the C-130J. A two-ship fleet is logistically much easier to support than a fleet with more types of transport aircraft. The cost-effectiveness benefit needs to be weighed, and I am glad that the Treasury is doing that.
Many equipment systems are crucial to the United Kingdom's capability to engage in expeditionary operations around the world. For example, the Commando Sea Kings need to be replaced for the Royal Marines and a new support helicopter is needed for the Royal Air Force to replace the Puma. I hope that, now we have a Joint Helicopter Command, the same type will fulfil both roles. In a rational world the EH-101 Merlin would do so because the V22 Osprey will cost £40 million. After the latest fatal accident in the United States, it is likely that the Osprey will be delayed further and that the cost of rectification measures will increase its price even more.
Eventually, we shall need a dedicated anti-tank helicopter for the commando brigade, which is losing that integral capability because its Lynxes are going. Supposedly, Apaches from the Army Air Corps will be available, but the aircraft are not marinised and there could be a conflict of interest when the Marines or the Royal Navy need an anti-tank capability for amphibious operations because the generals and the Army Air Corps are likely to say something different.
I argue most strongly for Her Majesty's Government to put the flesh on the bones of the expeditionary warfare strategy set out in the strategic defence review. The objective is clear; the trouble is that they have neither willed the means nor applied the intellectual resources to make the strategy effective.
5.56 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The point was made about five hours ago that this is the wrong day on which to hold such an important debate because local elections are taking place.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Hear, hear.
Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear." Curiously, I disagree. I have attended defence debates for 38 years—since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was in his pram—and I have rarely listened to such a thoughtful and interesting discussion. I do not complain about the length of the speeches, although I suffer because of that, as Members gave way and said what they thought. This has been a thoroughly worthwhile afternoon. However, I fear that I must truncate my thoughts to a question: are we sure that our forces have sufficient training in a police role to cope with a situation such as Kosovo?
I need not tell my hon. Friend the Minister that soldiers are not policemen. There is a problem here, and the nub of the matter is that there are at least 280,000 Serb refugees from Kosovo. The official Belgrade figure is 350,000. I am told by Radomir Putnikovich and others, who saw those people last week, that they are living in absolutely appalling conditions outside Belgrade and have one hot meal a day, if they are lucky. I was in Serbia in September with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who has since made another visit with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). This is a human problem and the only way to resolve it is to allow the refugees back into Kosovo. However, they cannot return at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the Kosovo Liberation Army has got its way and is in control of the situation. What is happening to United Nations resolution 1244? What safety is being provided by all those KFOR resources for non-Albanian peoples such as the Roma, the Serbs and the gypsies and, indeed, for Albanians who have in any way fallen foul of the KLA and are less then enthusiastic about it? It is extraordinary: we have put in all those dedicated troops, but how much can they do?
Specifically, although I do not expect my hon. Friend to answer tonight, will he turn his attention to what happened on 17 April at the village of Bijelo Polje, which was razed to the ground? According to the information that we have, 237 Serbs were slaughtered in appalling circumstances.
What have our forces been able to do? I hasten to say that that is not an implied criticism of the forces. It so happens that the regiment in which I did my national service, and with which I have maintained friendly contacts for all these years, is at the sharp end. I do not claim that the information is anything more than anecdotal, and certainly there has been no impropriety; but there is a problem. How is it possible to create the conditions for achievement of the objective for which the west went to war—namely, an end to ethnic cleansing?
I think it behoves us all to be constructive. Because my speech must be truncated, I will leave it at this. Some of us think that the only way forward is the establishment of a peace and reconciliation commission such as the one that produced such marvellous results in South Africa.
372
In the view of a Norwegian professor who addressed a large meeting in this building last night organised by some of us, we shall otherwise have to wait for 134 years—that being the average time for which Ottoman Turks and the other conquerors held the area. How long has NATO to stay there? I suspect that it will stay there not just for my lifetime, but for the lifetime of the youngest Member in the Chamber. That is the nature of the commitment.
Having been to Bosnia two years ago, and having opposed—along with Julian Amery—any involvement in Yugoslavia, I must say now that it would be irresponsible to withdraw, because we know the bloodbath that would ensue. Indeed, it would be irresponsible not to have heavy armour there, because otherwise some of our soldiers would be taken hostage, as a number of sappers were. I do not pretend that there is any easy answer, but a real problem is involved in expecting soldiers—however talented they may be in their profession—to move to another very difficult profession, and become policemen in a deeply unstable and mutually hostile society.
6.3 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I entirely endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Soldiers are not policemen, and their position is extremely difficult in the areas that he mentioned. Today, the hon. Gentleman's regiment announced that it is pursuing an initiative begun by my regiment in Bosnia, and is reverting to type like a ponticum rhododendron. It is seizing 15 local horses, on which it will police the more difficult hinterland in its area of responsibility. I am glad that the Greys are returning to their roots.
When I went to Bosnia in 1995, I asked a senior warrant officer how he felt that the mission was likely to go. He said, "It has all the smell of Cyprus." We have been in Cyprus for years, and there is still no possibility of our leaving. I fear that the same will apply to Bosnia, and to Kosovo.
I will be brief, and I apologise for having missed some of the Secretary of State's speech. I have already apologised to him. This has been an interesting and thoughtful debate; I want to speak only about money, and the resources required by the Ministry of Defence. Before that, however, I wish to pay tribute—as a former Minister for the Armed Forces—to the service men and women in all three forces and their families, to the civilians who are involved in sustaining and supporting our armed forces, and, in particular, to organisations such as the British Legion, the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmens Association, and a smaller organisation called Home Start, which has recently done marvellous work with families that find themselves hard pressed and up against it. It does a great deal to help with some of the difficulties that service families face.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the strategic defence review was generally well received, but, at the time, I and many other Conservative Members remained, rightly, unconvinced—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and other members of his defence team have often said—of its foreign policy base line. We were proved to be correct. Indeed, its assessments have proved to be wildly optimistic.
What we can say about the SDR is that it provided a blueprint for the future. One does not expect such look-forward documents to get everything right, but it

373
provided a blueprint. The services, as they always do, signed up to it with enthusiasm and approached the business in hand with verve. However, if the SDR is not delivered pretty much in its entirety—clearly, it cannot possibly be delivered in full; nothing ever is—the armed forces will become even more sceptical than they already are. New equipment is being delayed unacceptably. Exercises are being cancelled and, at present levels, the Ministry of Defence simply cannot afford to fund the SDR.
The problem does not lie with the MOD. I am sure that the heart of the Secretary of State for Defence, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues is in the right place. I am sure that the Prime Minister's heart is in the right place. Indeed, I have discussed the matter with him privately and I know that it is. The problem lies not with them but with the Treasury, which, as I have had cause to remark to the House before, works not for the British Government but, as we all know, for the Russians.
The Treasury continues, in its ignorant and dismissive way, to be totally careless of the claims of defence on the public purse. I want the Minister to understand that the position that the Department is in now is exactly the same as that in 1997 when the previous Government were in office: both the then Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence were absolutely in favour of getting more money for defence, but the Treasury won the day.
We are at a position where the MOD cannot continue to operate at that level of funding. If that is not sorted out with a more reasonable and sensible budget and with a clear ability to secure further resources, which the incoming Government after the next election will also have to commit to, our armed forces will become less capable, less efficient and less well trained.
I hear it regularly said among senior commanders that the forces are not as well trained as they were before the Gulf war. That is probably true. The danger for the armed forces is clear: once we begin to lose capability, it takes years to get it back. One of the SDR's key assumptions was that we would retain the capability to take part in high-intensity land battle. As, I hope, the Minister understands, that is essential even on peacekeeping operations.
The reason why British forces are so respected and admired on peacekeeping operations—I discovered it when I went to the MOD and when peacekeeping by the British Army was in its infancy—is because our soldiers, airmen and sailors have been so astonishingly well trained and are so disciplined, understanding and confident in their tasks. Peacekeeping is not an easy matter, but it is much less difficult than it might have been.
The Army has a good saying: "Train hard, fight easy." We have to be able to deliver troops ready for any type of operation, not just peacekeeping.
If the money is not made available, we run the risk that those qualities will go, and that with them will go the tremendous confidence that troops have in the ability to fight at the high-intensity end of the spectrum. Confidence is absolutely vital, but it is beginning to become worn, and not only in terms of training. My hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and my right hon.
374
Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) have all talked about sustainability. If soldiers go into action not completely sure that everything that they need will be there to back them up, that query of confidence will lurk in their minds and they will not perform as they could.
I beg the Minister to understand that a number of senior commanders, in all three services, are anxious about the erosion of training standards and the potential consequences that flow from it. A catalogue of exercises is being cancelled. I noted that, last year, one of the Medicine Man exercises, in Canada, was cancelled.
Medicine Man is the type of training that the British Army most needs: formation training in the most realistic circumstances, in near-battlefield conditions. It is very bad news that, because of commitments that they had to undertake, a formation could not participate in one of the Medicine Man operations. Not only is that wasteful of the resources that we retain in Canada, but it is astonishingly bad news both for the soldiers who participate in the exercises and for the commanders who get a chance to exercise at brigade formation the type of skills that they will need on the battlefield. The potential consequences flowing from such matters are very serious indeed. Such matters have implications for morale, retention and, above all, fighting effectiveness.
I should be grateful if the Minister would pass this to the Secretary of State: the Secretary of State must not let the Treasury be a party to the wanton destruction of one of the greatest and most effective institutions in the land. The services have had to cope with the most astonishing amount of change, under not only the previous Government but the current one. The services always come through in such situations and get on with it. They have a horror of the modern contemporary civilian, of whingeing and whining, and of saying that they cannot do it. They just get on and do it. There is, however, a limit beyond which they cannot deliver what they are being asked to do.
If further resources are not forthcoming, the fighting effectiveness of all three services may be gravely undermined, and the quality of activity that we can bring to the world in the cause of peace may be diminished.
6.13 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I share the view of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that this has been a remarkable debate, despite the fact that not a single member of the Select Committee on Defence attended it. I very much regret that absence, but have to point out that those people would not have had much of a look-in. We have run a full day's defence debate without them, and listened to very many valuable speeches.
As usual, not a single member of the Scottish National party has attended the debate. Perhaps even more significant, however, is the fact that the Government managed to field in this defence debate not one Labour Back Bencher representing an English constituency. When I consider the hundreds of thousands of people in the defence industry work force—let alone all the members of the forces—who are represented by Labour Members, I regret very much that none of those Members attended the debate. However, their absence makes doubly important the contribution of my hon. Friends.
We started with the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who made an interesting speech on behalf of his constituents. But how can he continue to

375
support the cuts that the Government are making to the defence budget? He speaks as if only the Labour party in Scotland will save the day, but I suspect that his constituents may think differently when they see ever more defence cuts piled on the Ministry of Defence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), with his wise words, made a hugely significant contribution. I should like to take up his point about the SDR being foreign policy driven, and the importance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Only a few months ago, the FCO asked its ambassadors around the world where they thought the hot spots might be. I understand that the FCO thought that there would be about seven in the world. In fact, there were about 53. I agree with my right hon. Friend about not necessarily relying wholly on the advice of the FCO on defence matters.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made his customary erudite speech on a wide range of issues. I wholly endorse his comments about the indecision in the procurement of important equipment for all our forces, including Typhoon missiles, C-17s and roll on/roll off ferries. They are all fundamental issues. I know that the Minister is as frustrated as we are that he cannot announce decisions. I suspect that it is not his fault. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) pointed out, the Treasury is to blame.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) gave us a personal testament borne of long experience, which we were glad to hear. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made an important point about biological weapons. His other three points were important, but I have time to concentrate on only one. He is right to say that that is the greatest concern that we face, and I say that as the Member of Parliament representing Porton Down.
My right hon. Friend said that the Government had been more open than previous Governments. In one sense he is right and in another he is wrong. He is wrong if he thinks that we should be beguiled by the little purple publication issued last year about the Government's plans for chemical and biological defence, because it contained nothing new. It was a useful compendium of existing Government policy. He was right to argue that we need a more open and adult approach towards educating the British public about the need for our nation to be better prepared for such events. I called for that from this Dispatch Box a couple of years ago and I hope that we will move down that path. In our mature democracy, we have the right climate to discuss these issues sensibly, without the mass hysteria that could occur from an irresponsible presentation of these issues.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) made an important contribution about Rosyth, DERA and peacekeeping. However, I wonder how she has the brass neck to quote Winston Churchill when she and her hon. Friends have been prancing around with their CND badges on for a quarter of a century, blighting what we have been trying to achieve in the west. Nevertheless, hope springs eternal. [Interruption.] I did not say that the hon. Lady was a member of CND, but I wonder how she has the gall to defend her Government's approach to the defence budget when her constituents are observing deeper and deeper defence cuts.
376
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) made a hugely important point about the need for gendarmeries in peacekeeping processes. That was echoed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. It is important to recognise that, in the Balkans, we are seeing an important contribution from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and, more recently, from the MOD police. They are out there now doing a valuable job and I pay tribute to both those organisations and their personnel. The MOD police have an unusually long tour of duty. I believe that they are out there for a year at a time, which puts them under considerable strain, and I salute them.
Mr. Dalyell: That did not stop 76 churches, a list of which I will give to the Minister, being destroyed while those organisations were there. How has KFOR allowed the destruction of the Serbian heritage, let alone the refugees?
Mr. Key: I do not know about the 76 churches, but when I was in Kosovo last autumn I saw NATO troops guarding churches. I visited a church in central Pristina and also observed from the air a Serbian Orthodox church deep in the countryside being guarded by a tank—I do not know which nationality; probably ours. I am sure that our forces are not neglecting their duty, but I suspect that they are hugely stretched.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) made an important contribution about the dangers of nuclear proliferation and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke of the need for the Western European Union not to be simply forgotten. Of course I endorse that. We must find some way of ensuring continuity of accountability. With his usual erudition on procurement issues, he gave us a tour d'horizon of the decisions that need to be made very shortly.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow spoke about policing and the importance of the return of refugees to their homes, with the problems that are involved, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex made an important contribution about funding, which is of course crucial, but we should not forget that this is a debate on defence in the world, so I would like to spend a few moments trying to gain a new perspective on that.
Last week, during the recess, I visited Texas on a personal visit to celebrate my younger daughter's 21st birthday. I am proud today to be wearing a one-star tie, which I acquired in the gift shop of the capitol building in Austin. It struck me that, as I was in Texas, I ought to find out what Texans thought about defence. I found the yellow pages and looked up the national guard. I rang the public affairs unit at Fort Mabry. I am very grateful to Lieutenant-Colonel John Stanford and his deputy Aaron Reed for their excellent guidance and for fixing up a full command briefing.
Colonel William Goodwin, the chief of staff in the adjutant-general's department, led the team. The director of military personnel, Colonel Jack Taliaferro; the director of plans, operations and training, Colonel Archie Meedor Jr; the state aviation officer, Colonel James Looney; and General John Scribner, the command historian, all helped me to get a new perspective on defence in the world. I also got a specifically Texan view from the students at the university of Texas at Austin.

377
I wanted to find out what the role of the national guard was, and how it achieved its vision and mission—the national guard is legendary—and what motivates men and women in the lone star state, that most confident and prosperous American state, to consider defence important. It was an opportunity to take a step back and learn from the experience of others.
Everything is indeed bigger in Texas. The total ready reserve strength in the United States is 1.4 million service men and women. The states with the greatest national guard strength are California, Pennsylvania and, at the head of the league, Texas. The Texas national guard has more than 16,000 in its army guard, 3,300 in the air guard, 1,000 in the active reservists, 290 in active duty special work, 1,744 in the federal civil technicians and administrative assistants and 405 state employees. That adds up to about 23,000 people in the Texas national guard.
The federal Government provides 97 per cent. of the budget, to the tune of about $300 million a year. The Texas national guard has 199 units and attachments stationed in 100 armouries in 90 cities. The air guard—these are reservists, let us remember—has two F16 fighter wings, an airlift wing with Hercules C130s, a weather flight and medical squadrons. A little extra is the Texas state guard, with more than 1,200 people to replace the national guards when they have been deployed. They are mostly retired people committed to helping. They are unarmed and unpaid: it is a form of community service.
The army guard is of course the piece de resistance. For example, Task Force Eagle is currently in Bosnia; 481 members of the Texas national guard are there and, for the first time since the second world war, regulars in the US army are being commanded by national guard reservists.
Mr. Soames: The national guard structure in America is wonderful and suits that country well. However, does my hon. Friend agree that those troops could not be used in an outbreak of hostilities, because they are not sufficiently trained to deal with major outbreaks of public disturbance?
Mr. Key: Those are interesting comments, and all I can do is suggest that my hon. Friend visits Texas, because he is not correct. Another notable achievement of the Texas army national guard is that their soldiers are embedded in the US Army's 41st Division, which is the first and only fully digitised division in the US forces. It is the most modern unit in the US Army and the reservists are part of it. Indeed, part of the role and the vision of the reservists in the US is precisely to be ready to deploy as formed units to high-intensity warfare. That is why they have 32,000 acres of training area in Texas alone, 200 M1A1 tanks, 162 M2/3 Bradley fighting vehicles and 36 M109 A5 cannon. They have served in 63 countries in the past year, from Bolivia to Australia and Korea to Germany, and they are a real force multiplier.
Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the air national guard, from Texas and all the other states of the Union, has been engaged regularly in operational duty
378
overseas, including in the Balkans, the Gulf and Vietnam, and has operated to exactly the same operational standards as regular US Air Force squadrons?
Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is wholly right. The national guard also plays a major role in the partnership for peace. Texas also happens to have the highest number of people of Czech descent of any state in the US, so it is a partner with the Czech Republic in military-to-military exchange programmes.
The national guard has a dual mission. First, it has an organised state militia function under the command of the Governor, George Bush junior, and secondly, it is a first-line reserve component of the US army and air force. It can be ordered or called into active federal service by the President, as in Bosnia now.
Mr. Tom King: My hon. Friend is on strong ground, because in the Gulf war I saw for myself in Jeddah that the huge air-to-air refuelling tankers based there were operated by the US national guard. Their work enabled their troops to come over from Tampa and other places straight through to Dhahran and the other bases, and half the pilots were women.
Mr. Key: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for throwing yet more light on the subject. The primary role of the Texas national guard is as a first-response unit to cope with flooding, range fires, hurricanes, drought, shelter and the air delivery of the oral rabies vaccination programme along the Mexican border. The national guard supports law enforcement, especially the Texas counter-drug programme. It flies four full-time counter-drug aircraft and last year seized drugs to the value of $2.5 billion. That is a remarkable record.
The question is why, in the comfort of Dallas or Austin, should so many US citizens, deep inside the strongest country in the world, believe in the importance of federal and state defence forces? Most Texans, and indeed most Americans, realise that defence today is about more than the defence of the homeland and dependent territories. Of course, US citizens are not uncritical of their armed forces. In Texas, I saw two hugely contrasting films. "Rules of Engagement" could hardly have been more robust in support of the US military, but the Oscar-winning "American Beauty" carried a sinister and somewhat subversive message about the military. Both were great movies, and in their diversity they were tributes to the strength of American democracy.
In the United States, they tend to have a different approach to citizenship. We take ours for granted. Most of us are proud of our heritage, but we do not always like to show it. We get upset when mindless thugs and idle kids despoil the Cenotaph and the statues of great men, but we do not fly our national flag much—I wish we did—and we do not do enough to teach our children and inform our people about the need for defence in the world. That is a collective failing of all right hon. and hon. Members, and we should seek to address it. We should seek to make defence more relevant to the lives of ordinary people. Deep in the strategic defence review, and lurking in the defence White Paper, there are references to the wider role of defence forces, but they are not written about by defence correspondents or spoken of on television and radio. Just once a year we have an opportunity to air these issues—and this is it.

379
The United Kingdom should and can share the confidence and exuberance of our best ally, the United States, as we enter the new millennium. The 21st century brings the chance to benefit from accelerating economic, technological, cultural and political integration, bringing citizens of all continents closer together, allowing us to share ideas, goods and information in an instant on the world wide web. That is globalisation, and it is good.
An increasing number of nations have embraced western core values, including democracy, market economics, respect for fundamental human rights and the rule of law. Indeed, as Member of Parliament for Salisbury, home of one of the four original Magna Cartas, I am particularly conscious of that. Attempts are under way to raise a large sum of money for a new Magna Carta building in the United States, where they also understand its significance.
Globalisation also brings risks, however—risks from rogue states, ethnic conflicts threatening regional stability, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, drug trafficking and international organised crime. They are all global concerns. So are resource depletion, rapid population growth, environmental damage, new infectious diseases, cultures of corruption and uncontrolled, unsustainable economic migration.
Just as United States citizens will suffer, so will United Kingdom citizens if the global economy becomes unstable or foreign markets collapse. However high our domestic standards may be, they are worth less if other countries do not strive for similar standards. So our citizens have a direct stake in the prosperity and stability of other nations.
Our national interests must be clear. We must ensure the physical security of our territory; the defence of our homeland is vital and should not have been written out of the script in the strategic defence review. The economic well-being of our nation must be protected and the safety of our citizens ensured. We must protect from attack our national infrastructures, including energy, banking and finance, telecommunications, transport, water systems and emergency services. Cyber warfare is no longer science fiction. The CNN factor has also been apparent for some years, and media manipulation and spin are facts of life. Now we can add cyber-hate websites and the need in a mature democracy for the state to regulate the security of the internet.
Our national interests extend beyond our shores. There are many regions where we trade, and 10 million British citizens live and work in them to create wealth. We must be prepared to reach out and promote economic and social stability, to protect our nationals and British dependent territories and protect the trade routes and shipping lanes that are still our life-blood even in this age of electronic commerce and air travel.
Sometimes we and our allies must act to defend our ideals and values and to halt gross violations of human rights. It is right that we should respond and seek to avert humanitarian disasters. It is all part of defence. We must spend more money on intelligence gathering and monitoring and on analysing all that information. Our military must prepare to respond to hot spots and plan to intervene if they are called on to do so.
We must also spend money on defence diplomacy, which was not dreamed up by new Labour in 1997, but has been part of a distinguished two-way process for generations, with our military attaches serving alongside
380
our diplomats, and foreign military personnel being made welcome at Sandhurst and the Royal College of Defence Studies, for example. We must not forget the important world of business and industry, and how that depends on the defence that is provided for our country.
Above all, we must prepare for an uncertain future. We must think the unthinkable, including assessing the worth of a new system of ballistic missile defence. We must have a strong, competitive, innovative and responsive defence industrial and research and development base, which is why so many of us are so worried about the Government's dash to sell off the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
We need to bring our citizens with us in fulfilling those wide defence commitments. We will not do that if we cannot convince the men and women in our armed forces that the politicians are prepared to find the money necessary for the military to do the job. We must always prepare, equip and train Her Majesty's forces for high-intensity war, even though we use them for peacekeeping.
Britain's contribution to the defence of its own people, to the defence of Europe and the world is a record of which we can be proud. Meanwhile, the Government continue to cut the defence budget.
I end by reminding the Government of the wise words of a distinguished Labour Secretary of State for Defence. In his autobiography, he wrote:
no Government should cut a military capability without cutting the political commitment which made that commitment necessary.
6.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The debate has been interesting and well informed. Unlike our previous effort a few weeks ago, most speeches even stuck to the point. There has been much carping about the fact that the debate was being held today, but no one need remind a Scot with a distant constituency of the desirability of getting away, if possible, on a Thursday. However, there seemed to be little difficulty in filling the time. I cannot say that I felt time passing slowly while I listened to the debate. I compliment hon. Members on both sides of the House on the quality of their contributions. I have plenty of time to wind up the debate, and I shall do my best to respond to all the points that were raised.
In opening this debate earlier today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described some of the fresh thinking that is under way to modernise defence. That fresh thinking is being devoted to European defence, to meeting the challenges posed by rogue states that seek to acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction, to delivering the strategic defence review, and to using the expertise of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force as a force for good around the world. That is a challenging agenda, but it is one that we are meeting, largely through the great improvements to front-line capability arising from the strategic defence review.
My right hon. Friend rightly focused mainly on the broader international scene. I shall mention that in passing, but I shall concentrate on some matters that are rather closer to home. First, I apologise to the House if, in the course of my remarks, I lose my way around the mass of notes, pieces of paper and what I hope are wise

381
thoughts that I have collected—but another disadvantage of winding up the debate is that I have to read my own writing, which is never a very good thing.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) did not seem convinced about the part that the security review had played in informing the outcome of the strategic defence review. However, I assure him that the security review was embedded in the thinking that underlay the SDR. The SDR cannot predict actual conflicts, such as Kosovo, but it was never meant to, so the criticism levelled against it today was unjustified. The SDR was intended to predict classes of conflicts and to provide an appropriate level of response within our front-line capability to meet them. I submit that it has certainly managed to do that, as the success of our actions over the past year shows.
The accusation was also made that the SDR was cost driven. All I can say is that every aspect of Government in a time of scarce resources is cost driven to some extent. Cost was not the primary focus of the SDR: the Department felt some pain as a result of the reductions, but we supported them. I shall return to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) when I come to consider his contribution. There is no need to labour the point—costs and budgets were reduced; forces were reduced. The SDR was a careful examination of what we were trying to do in the world and of the forces and capabilities needed to do it. The review has provided a pretty accurate match. As the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) pointed out, we need to review such matters—nothing should be seen as static.
Under the SDR, the broad capabilities and the objectives were correctly identified and we have been able to follow them through. Furthermore, we have been able to do so within the challenging budget that we set. I am not trying to say that my right hon. Friend, my colleagues and I are complacent about our funding—we are not. However, we should pay attention to the resources that we are allocating to ensure that we obtain best value for money. By and large, we are managing to do that and to do so within the constraints of our targets. The targets are challenging, but we are meeting them.
I do not propose to go round the houses over the national missile defence system. Attitudes towards it have been adequately aired from both sides of the House. The issue is complex and it is evolving. In response to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), there is no great inconsistency between the comments of the Foreign Office and of my right hon. Friend. One approach relates to the present and the other to a hypothetical future—it is proper to consider that possibility. I shall try to return to that point.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, because of his obsession with Europe, tries to read more into the ESDI and the common European defence policy than we do. It is a legitimate aim to have a rapid reaction force of between 50,000 and 60,000 troops who are capable of deploying quickly—obviously, given its name. Clearly, such a force must be organised multinationally. I can see nothing wrong with that. We can play our part with our European neighbours.
382
There is no inconsistency between the argument that our European neighbours should spend more money on defence overall and the point that they could receive better value for the money that they spend at present. We are talking about the top-end capability of a service in which about 2 million soldiers are under arms at any one time. As has been mentioned, the French are in the process of abandoning conscription—at last. Perhaps other European nations will follow suit. That will help us to fulfil our objectives.
On Kosovo, there seems to be some confusion between the logistics of ensuring that there are sufficient supplies and the problems that may arise in their distribution. The point about spare parts for vehicles is a good example. I am sure that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green would agree that every tank in Kosovo cannot go around with a truck full of spares behind it in case it breaks down. There is a big difference between ensuring that sufficient supplies are provided in the theatre of conflict so as to conduct operations responsibly and the occasional immediate logistical difficulties that may arise in ensuring that those supplies get out to vehicles in the field. If there are any lessons to be learned at that forward end of supply, I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will be taken on board.
I think that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred to munitions. There was no question of running out of munitions in Kosovo at any time. Reports to that effect are mistaken and they do not gain in truth or in accuracy—I would not for a moment suggest that the hon. Gentleman was trying to be untruthful—by being repeated, no matter how often.
Mr. Wilkinson: Surely the point is that had operations continued with the same intensity for very much longer, there would have been a problem. The Ministry of Defence must be able and prepared to sustain operations for very much longer than is currently the case. That is the point, and it is a very simple one.
Dr. Moonie: My information is that we did not feel at any time that our objectives were under threat because of a shortage of any of the munitions that we used. We do not foresee that problem in the future, either. Clearly, if the conflict had lasted months longer, anyone might have got into difficulties in certain areas. However, it did not, so there was no problem.
Mr. Duncan Smith: May I make the simple observation that I think that the Minister is slightly missing the point? It is not that we managed the operation as it stood; the key question is what would have happened if we had been opposed. The requirements for spares, back-up material and even munitions would have almost immediately rocketed, so to what degree would we have failed because of the problems outlined in the leaked reports? That is the challenge for him and his fellow Ministers.
Dr. Moonie: It is a challenge, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that, if there had been active opposition, the operation might well have been conducted on a very different basis. He makes an entirely false analogy.
Rather sneering remarks were made about lean supply and the effective method of logistical operation that we now have in place. Mention was made of supermarkets

383
and other services, but I must point out that every successful manufacturing industry in the world uses a lean supply chain. They do not run out of supplies, and our supplies did not run out in Kosovo and they were not going to run out. Masses of stores were not left lying around, but, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex rightly said, the last thing that we want is masses of stuff lying around becoming out of date and obsolete. We must be able to manage supplies better than we have in the past. As present experience has shown, I submit that future experience with the new Defence Logistics Organisation will show that we have provided a successful underpinning of our front-line forces.
I shall discuss the Territorial Army later. Unlike everyone else, I have to be conscious of time as I wind up the debate.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Minister wants to catch his train.
Dr. Moonie: To my great disappointment, I am not returning to Scotland until tomorrow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) told me that he would be unable to be here for the winding-up speech, and I recognise the reasons for that. The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) also informed me that he would not be present as did—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will just have to wait.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton rightly recognised the value of the Clyde bases in the west of Scotland, their huge economic input and the number of jobs involved. I noted his pleas for Yarrow and Kvaerner and for the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde, which were backed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson). Of course, we recognise the need for the industry to continue and I think that continuity of employment will be provided on the Clyde. I am not trying to understate the logistical difficulties of ensuring that that comes to pass, but I clearly cannot make any further comment today. However, my expectation is that we shall be able to keep things going.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Moonie: I really do not have time; I must try to reply to as many points as possible, so I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
I am very well aware of the problems of the Churchill estate. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton that I shall try to ensure that the problems that have led to delays in transferring property to the local housing association will be solved in the very near future. My hon. Friend referred to the letter that he received on the organisation of facilities. We must recognise that General Cowans has put out a consultation document. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall listen to his concerns and try to address them.
I recognise that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater has long experience of the Ministry of Defence. I am aware of the attempts that he made—they were successful in the main—to handle the necessary reductions in expenditure and in the size of the forces. I think that the right hon. Friend would be honest enough to admit that there were some difficulties, particularly with the defence medical services, with which we are trying to deal. I accept that it was a difficult thing to do.
384
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman conducted an exercise quite like the strategic defence review. Although the down-scaling produced successful results in the short term, it was largely a down-scaling of forces that remained focused on the same objectives as the larger forces previously. Perhaps that would have changed if the right hon. Gentleman had had enough time. I feel that we were left still focused on past objectives rather than those of the future. The SDR, whatever else may be said about it, is an attempt to focus on the future and our likely commitments.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the value of intelligence. I shall refer to asymmetry and the difficulties that we face in coming to terms with it. Clearly, effective co-operation among intelligence services and a recognition of the problems, including electronic espionage and electronic destruction just for the hell of it, can play a part in disrupting a complex society.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Moonie: No. I am sorry, I do not have time.
Defences have to change. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was saying that we are no longer focused on the threats that had been our concern, he was of course referring to the threats of the past, not those of the future. Clearly effective action is needed to meet perceived threats.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) must recognise that the provision of missiles for Typhoon is a genuinely difficult argument between two competing systems. Much as we would like to have a decision in the near future, there are arguments to consider on both sides. It is not easy to weigh the relative merits of two competing systems, both of which have considerable advantages—[Interruption.] We have not yet made a decision. My right hon. Friend assures me that we shall be making it very soon. I have both hands in front of me; I do not have one tied up behind my back.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: We will promise to be a little more patient if the Minister promises that he will make the decision.
Dr. Moonie: Much as I enjoy the greatness that has been thrust upon me, it has not quite reached that level within the Ministry. Good points have been made about morale and our role in the world. The right hon. and learned Gentleman focused on the argument about more or better spending in Europe.
I have tried to cover Kosovo as much as possible. I do not have time to deal with Iraq, other than to say in passing that we are making attempts to underpin the safety of the people underneath the no-fly zones—the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south—and we must recognise the legitimacy of the operation under UN resolutions, however difficult such long-term operations are. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about Kosovo and the problems that we have there. However difficult long-term operations may be, we must recognise that sometimes we have to take part in them, however unpleasant the consequences may be. Sometimes it is our duty to do so. That is certainly the position with the ones that we have been discussing today.

385
I shall spend a little more time on asymmetry and some of the threats which have been referred to, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling. We recognise the potential threat from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorism. The MOD is fully involved in activities that are designed to counter the threat, which are co-ordinated and led by the Home Office in this country and by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office abroad.
The strategy that we support is twofold. First, it is designed to disable threats, and secondly, to plan an effective response to any explosion or release of material that may occur. That would involve mobilising a wide range of services, including the police, fire and ambulance services, local authorities and health services. That important work is being effectively co-ordinated by Ministers in other Departments and I assure the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling that the MOD provides practical support for both elements of the strategy and is closely involved in the planning of the overall response and the exercise programme designed to test the response.
All troops are now given training in handling dangerous situations and there is, of course, a regiment dedicated to such services, which we take very seriously. With decent intelligence and careful management, we hope to minimise such a risk to the country. As a doctor, I recognise that there are certain circumstances in which any form of attack could overwhelm any level of force put up to deal with it. We must be honest enough to accept that there are potential threats which, in the short term, would be impossible to tackle, but that does not alter the fact that we plan to handle them as effectively as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman made some specific points about Russia. We have shown tremendous willingness to help and, in the past, have provided practical and financial assistance for dealing with fissile materials. Recently, it was suggested that British Nuclear Fuels may be invited to help with safeguarding and destroying fissile materials. There is no better company in the world to deal with such materials, however much it has suffered recently as a result of one particular problem. We are world leaders in this field and should give Russia the benefit of our expertise as much as possible.
Avoiding leaching from fissile materials is a far more difficult problem to deal with at second hand. We are a member of all the export control regimes, including committees, the nuclear suppliers group and the Australia group: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is as familiar with them as I am. Those bodies depend on the good will of all the participants involved which, so far, they have had. However, we must accept that there is a danger of leaks which we must take the best precautions possible to prevent.
On the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) was, in many ways, speaking to the last person to whom she should be addressing her concerns. When I was in opposition, I dealt with the privatisation of the British Technology Group, which I opposed. Then, for my sins, I had to deal with the partial privatisation of AEA Technology. By that time, my views had changed
386
substantially and I came to recognise that there were good aspects of privatisation. I was, at worst, neutral and, at best, slightly in favour of it.
I honestly believe that the legitimate concerns expressed by the Opposition are similar to those that I expressed when I dealt with the privatisation of AEA Technology. With proper work and effective separation of the two elements involved, one can provide for the necessary part of DERA to be kept within the public sector and for a potentially highly effective commercial company to be created from the remainder.
I accept that there are considerable concerns about potential job losses and threats to individuals' personal security, which will be addressed during the process that was discussed earlier. However, that does not affect the fact that, in principle, we have every chance of making privatisation an outstanding success for DERA and the country.
Having mentioned the right hon. Member for Wealden, I should, in the few minutes that are left, discuss the threats that he raised. His point about trade wars was especially interesting and, given that there are forces outwith our control, underlined the importance in defence diplomacy of Departments working across departmental boundaries to handle the pressure that can lead to conflict if it is not properly handled. Despite the underpinning principles of free trade and economic expansion, there is a role for the Department.
I shall end on that note. It is the small, unsung things we do that may have the largest effect on world peace and prosperity in the long term. I am sure that that is an objective of which we are all in favour.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Secretary of State for Defence is present, I should like to ask whether you have received any indication from him or from his colleagues about whether a statement will be made this evening about the serious potential danger to security posed by the e-mail virus known as the "love letter". Clearly, a Department of State must have been aware of the problem early this morning, yet, as far as I have been able to discover, no statement was made nor any warning given to other public services about the potential danger. Does the Secretary of State intend to make a statement telling us when his Department was made aware of the problem, whether other Departments had been informed of the severity of the situation, and whether there was any danger of the virus corrupting sensitive or operational computer systems in the Ministry of Defence?
Mr. Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to report to you that I received an e-mail this morning from a woman I have never met telling me that she loved me. That is not unusual—[Laughter.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am sure that the House is fascinated by that information, but I think that I have heard enough to enable me to deal with the point of order. I have received no notification that the Secretary of State for Defence intends to make any statement along the lines that the hon. Gentlemen have suggested.

Telemedicine
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
7.1 pm
Dr. Howard Stoate: I feel fortunate to have obtained an Adjournment debate on a subject which I believe is of great importance and sits well with Government policy on the health service.
Telemedicine means medicine at a distance. It has been defined by the American Medical Association as:
the provision of health care consultation and education using telecommunication networks to communicate information.
Currently, the telephone is the simplest and most common form of telecommunication and, therefore, of the telemedicine medium. It is used every day by every GP in the country and is now, I am pleased to say, employed by NHS Direct—a 24-hour nurse-led helpline that can offer triage, information and other services to patients, wherever they live and at whatever time of the day or night they choose to phone. However, telemedicine can be far more sophisticated. Almost every day, it brings the introduction of more sophisticated systems that extend the range and scope of such services. That is one of the reasons why I requested this evening's debate.
Telemedicine has the potential to deliver improved access to health care to the whole nation and greatly to reduce pressure on the acute sector by bringing specialist knowledge and expertise to the heart of communities, and even directly into patients' homes. The key function of telemedicine is assessment and diagnosis. It has the capacity to speed up diagnosis and the referral procedure, thereby reducing the need for patients to travel and enabling more efficient use to be made of hospital time and resources.
That is of particular benefit to isolated and rural communities. For example, in Australia and the United States of America, which contain large tracts of land with extremely low population densities, the use of telemedicine video-imaging to make emergency diagnoses is well established. Although such problems are far less pronounced in this country, many communities, both urban and rural, are poorly served by certain medical specialties. Telemedicine offers one means of tackling such underprovision.
We all know that there are shortages of certain specialists. I am pleased that the Government are tackling that by dramatically increasing the number of specialist training places available, but gaps remain and it will be many years before enough specialists are trained to meet all the needs of every community. Therefore, it is vital that such resources as the NHS has are used to the best possible effect and in the most efficient way.
Let me give an example drawn from my locality, which prompted me to raise this subject. The Lions hospice operates in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond). Last year, the hospice was faced with a problem: it had working for it a full-time palliative care consultant, Dr. Peter Harper, who was able to provide first-class treatment directly to patients in the hospice. However, Dr. Harper decided to take a post in Cornwall, thus leaving the hospice without a palliative care consultant. As I said, there is a shortage
388
of palliative care specialists in Britain. Despite the fact that more are being trained and will be available in the future, there is a gap.
The hospice found it extremely difficult to recruit a replacement for Dr. Harper. Moreover, on examining its resources, it found it difficult to justify employing a full-time consultant at a hospice of moderate size. It simply was not the best use of NHS resources. It seemed wrong to take up the time of a full-time consultant at a hospice that did not need one. When I spoke to Dr. Harper, he mentioned that he was doing jobs that were not within his field of expertise, so he felt that his time was not being used to the best possible effect.
The hospice therefore invested £7,000 in telemedicine equipment—a couple of monitors, a couple of high-quality video cameras, six ISDN lines and the necessary electronics to link all the equipment together. That enables the hospice to communicate directly with Dr. Harper—the same NHS consultant, who is now in Cornwall. Three times a week, case conferences are held with him through a live TV link. The quality of the system is so good that he can assess scans and X-rays directly over the system and can participate directly in patient care, as if he were in the room. I have had a conference with him over the equipment, and I was astounded by the quality of the link and how well the system worked for the hospice.
Although the hospice has no consultant, it has access to a consultant exactly when he is needed. He is available three times a week on a regular basis, and can be contacted at other times in emergencies, if necessary. He can provide a first-class service to patients in my constituency, even though he is 200 miles away.
That seems a splendid way of ensuring that the NHS gets the best value for money out of the system. The only on-going costs are those of the hospice's contract with the consultant's current employer and of the telephone links, which are very small compared with the cost of employing a consultant. Although the hospice has not had a consultant for the past year, it has access to a first-class service.
Such an innovative response to the problem of local under-provision can only be applauded. Not only is it more efficient and cost-effective than other systems, but it increases the level of responsibility and expertise of locally based nurses and other health professionals who liaise with remote consultants. A colleague of mine in Dartford, Dr. Roger Peppiatt, has taken a sabbatical from his GP practice specifically to examine the breadth and scope of telemedicine, and is researching that very area. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say when he returns from his sabbatical.
Telemedicine is one way of developing the role of the nurse, which fits well with the Government's primary care strategy. The kind of consultant-led, nurse-managed system that operates at the Lions hospice could act as a model for many other parts of the health service.
The education function of telemedicine should also be emphasised. It could provide significant opportunities for primary care professionals and GPs to develop new skills and build on their existing knowledge, enabling them to offer new services to local people.
In Ireland, for example, the advent of a video conferencing link between the island of Inishmore and the department of psychiatry at University College hospital,

389
Galway, gave patients on the island their first opportunity of direct psychiatric assessment. Before the link was established, the majority of new cases were admitted directly to hospital, as there was no qualified professional on the island to assess properly the severity of each case.
Not only did direct assessment reduce the number of hospital referrals, but it gave health care professionals on the island a more sophisticated understanding of the nature of psychiatric conditions. That entailed an appreciation of how to identify and manage such conditions, and therefore enabled them to give the appropriate support to psychiatric professionals on the mainland.
Video conferencing as a teaching tool has great potential. It could enable local health practitioners to learn from leaders in their field through interactive classes, and the internet, which has allowed patients to obtain a greater understanding of their condition, offers even more potential.
Improving local health care services has the direct consequence of reducing the need for hospitalisation in many cases. That is good news for hospitals and their staff, but even better news for patients, who, given the opportunity to stay at home, can enjoy a much better quality of life. A good example of that is the pilot programme involving patients with chronic illness, which is being conducted by Newcastle City Health NHS trust in partnership with Newcastle city council and the regional medical physics department.
The trial involves the installation of telemedicine monitors in a patient's home, allowing his or her condition to be remotely monitored by a local control centre. Any change in the patient's heartbeat, respiration or temperature can be recorded and monitored. If there is a change, the GP, nurse or other specialist can be notified. So far, the results have been favourable, encouraging the belief that such social alarm monitoring services may in the future provide a realistic alternative to hospitalisation for thousands of people.
As the national beds inquiry showed, many people in hospital, including the elderly and those with long-term chronic conditions, have no clinical need to be there. Indeed, an extended stay in hospital may actually be of harm to them. Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, which is an extremely unpleasant bug and difficult to treat, exists only in hospitals. It is virtually impossible to catch it in the community. I know of only one case in the world of a patient who acquired MRSA from a community infection. It is sometimes bad for one's health to be in hospital. Therefore, anything that can reduce the number of hospital admissions or the length of stay must be applauded, not merely as a way of saving money for the NHS, but as a way of improving patient care.
However, certain provisos remain. Telemedicine cannot be phased in on a wider scale until its long-term effectiveness has been demonstrated conclusively to the wider community of health professionals and patients. We must establish that patient monitoring can be performed reliably and safely to ensure that such trials can be extended.
We need a way of ensuring that people are reassured, that patients feel that they are receiving good quality medicine, and that doctors feel that their expertise is being best used. We must ensure that pilot studies are properly evaluated,
390
and that all the benefits can be seen by everybody so that they can decide for themselves whether telemedicine should be developed further. That is why we need proper training specifically designed for telemedicine practitioners and the regulation of telemedicine itself. Those are vital issues which the Government need to address and for which they need to provide a proper framework.
The Government have a major role to play in that. Undertaking a review of telemedicine and its role in the health service would serve to resolve some of the issues that are preventing the wider use of telemedicine. As a recent guidance note from the NHS Executive stated:
The full benefit of telemedicine and telecare may only be realised in the light of managerial and organisational change
within the health service.
The Government have already made a commitment to modernising the NHS and increasing the role of IT across the health and social care system. Promoting telemedicine and producing guidance documents for health authorities on how telemedicine can be incorporated more fully into the health care system is one way of achieving that goal.
That is why I hope that today the Minister will be able to take a lead. An evaluation of whether the quality of care and diagnostic accuracy being delivered by telemedicine is equal to that delivered in person would help to tackle the misguided belief that telemedicine is a second-class form of medicine. A review of the law to ensure that the interests of telemedicine practitioners and patients are adequately protected would also serve a useful function. For example, whether a remote consultant who examines a patient's case is subject to the same regulations as an in-house consultant is a question frequently raised by experts in the field. Establishing just who is liable for a mistake or misdiagnosis and creating a proper control for telemedicine, governing the interaction between different institutions and different specialisms, is clearly necessary.
There is no question but that within every health authority there is greater scope for the practice of telemedicine. For example, health authorities could consider setting up telephone contacts between the health service and recently discharged patients to monitor their progress. That is an obvious, cost-effective form of telemedicine, which would undoubtedly benefit patients and could be delivered through existing systems, such as NHS Direct.
The use of electronic referral letters and electronic medical records, creating virtual outpatient departments, is another form of telemedicine that could easily be developed and progressed. For example, a number of internet-based projects have been set up around the country linking hospital dermatology departments and GP surgeries. The quality of images available over such systems is good enough to allow a dermatologist many hundreds of miles away to make an accurate diagnosis and offer appropriate advice and treatment.
There is also the possibility that the internet and telemedicine could be used in developing countries, so that experts from one country could establish links with experts in a different country, diagnosing and training.
However, some significant ethical implications need to be addressed. We must ensure that the systems are confidential and secure. The internet has already been shown in many cases to be an insecure medium. There

391
also needs to be a change in the attitude, work practices and organisational structure of the NHS if we are to see telemedicine developed. I should like the Government to encourage all health authorities to draw up a telemedicine strategy with specific targets for the adoption of telemedicine in their areas and specific proposals for its use.
An NHS in which telemedicine is widely practised is one in which there will be greater communication between health professionals and between health professionals and patients, forming new partnerships across service boundaries. It would also be a service that respects the idea of lifelong learning, committed to the use of new technologies in providing opportunities for its staff further to develop their skills.
Breaking down interdisciplinary boundaries and encouraging a fresh look at how skills are utilised in the health service will help to create the modern, efficient NHS which the Government are determined to build. Telemedicine has enormous potential to reduce medical inequalities in Britain and to bring services back to areas that, in recent years, have seen gaps in, or a lack of, services. That is one powerful reason why we should be looking to invest more in telemedicine during the next few years.
7.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart):
Information is the key to the modern age. The new information age offers possibilities for the future limited only by the boundaries of our imaginations.
I quote the Prime Minister in "Our Information Age" and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on securing a timely debate on telemedicine.
Last month, I was delighted to open officially a telemedicine system, which links the accident and emergency departments at Bolton, Burnley and Bury with the maxillofacial and oral surgical unit in Blackburn royal infirmary. Experts at Blackburn can now quickly assess patients with facial injuries. Treatment begins immediately under expert supervision without the need to travel long distances. Patients are transferred to the in-patient unit at Blackburn only when necessary. For many patients, that will mean avoiding the 20-mile round trip to the specialist unit, and allow them to remain close to their families. It is a fascinating example of the NHS using new technologies to improve patient care.
Before I explore the use of telemedicine further, let me explain the wider need for change. The Government are committed to building a new NHS, which is faster, fairer and more convenient for patients and fit to face the challenges of a new millennium.
The extra resources that the Budget made available to the NHS give us an excellent opportunity to modernise its services. We have set out a 10-year modernisation programme to renew and reform the NHS. It aims to transform services, widen access, foster quality and modernise government.
We have achieved a lot: we are modernising every casualty department that needs modernising, getting more doctors and nurses into the NHS, setting up new additional services like NHS Direct and walk-in centres. Of course, we are providing the extra resources that the
392
health service needs. We have been turning the NHS around and, in the process, laying the foundations for modernisation.
We have announced the modernisation action teams, which will consider the variation in practice and performance in the NHS and provide a unique opportunity to work with patients and professions to modernise the NHS and reinvent it for the new century.
The teams will devise solutions and work towards the creation of a national plan for the NHS. The national plan will embrace all those who share a commitment to the founding principles of the NHS but who have an equal determination to modernise its practices.
One of the ideas from the initial meeting of the teams was the potential use of a patient-held smart card to enable patients to gain access to their medical history. That is an example of the innovative ideas that emanate from the teams and will be taken forward in the coming months.
Telemedicine and telecare will play a vital part in modernisation. They are not new medical disciplines but tools that allow services to be delivered in a new way. They will provide services for patients, when and where they need them. That is happening at Blackburn.
People often associate telemedicine with video conferencing and perceive it simply as a patient in a remote location connected to a doctor by a video link. However, it is much more than that. It is about using simple as well as complex technology to ensure that patients get the right treatment at the most convenient place, from doctors and nurses who are able to make the best use of their specialist skills. Telemedicine and telecare can potentially be applied to all aspects of the NHS.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford vividly described examples in his constituency. Good work is being done throughout the country. I shall outline some examples to show the range of options that telemedicine offers. In Lewisham, a specialist mental health team is using telepsychiatry to link to a local GP. Video conferencing is partly used in place of referral to a specialist unit. The patients remain in the care of the local team that they know and trust. Equally important, the stigma that is sadly often associated with attending a specialist mental health unit is avoided.
In Bradford, the Anchor housing trust is working with British Telecom on a telecare system that monitors people who are at risk in their homes. Alarms are automatically generated for the carer should something go wrong. That enables people who have such a system to lead a more independent life, secure in the knowledge that they will get help if they need it.
In Cornwall, the A and E centres at Treliske and Truro support a number of nurse-led minor injury units in the community using video conferencing and teleradiology links. Patients have access to specialist care where they need it and avoid the long journey in to one of the main A and E units. That is especially important in rural areas.
The needs of patients must ultimately drive developments in telemedicine and telecare. Building on the work of recent years, they are increasingly seen as real options for effective health care delivery. Clearly, the evidence base is still being established, but a lot can be done now. For example, Peterborough hospitals NHS trust has links from eight local GPs to the specialist

393
dermatology services. Images and e-mail referrals can be sent via the NHSNet for diagnosis and triage for referral. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's concerns about confidentiality, but the NHSNet provides a much more secure system than the web. Patients avoid unnecessary referrals and journeys and receive a quicker diagnosis, reducing the stress associated with waiting for results.
My hon. Friend has also described the work in Newcastle, where a telemonitoring service is being used in the home to monitor patients suffering from chronic illnesses. That is a perfect example of social services and health care providers working together for the benefit of patients. The patients have said how much they value the reassurance the system gives them; they know that someone can help them if there is a problem, especially at night.
Key to the wider development of telemedicine and telecare is our belief that they should be implemented only where there is good evidence that they are a safe and appropriate solution to the clinical needs of patients. We are building on the earlier work in telemedicine, ensuring that patients receive the best care in the right place at the right time from the right people.
Under the pathology modernisation programme, the United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust is setting up the Avon virtual pathology laboratory service and using telepathology to provide faster and more reliable access to a range of laboratory services, allowing quicker resolution and better consensus for difficult diagnosis.
Under our A and E modernisation programme, North Bristol NHS trust is developing a telemedicine link by which X-rays and other images can be relayed between hospitals. East Kent hospitals NHS trust will link minor injuries units at Buckland and Deal hospitals to two full A and E departments, using telemedicine to provide access to specialist advice. In another innovative development, Avon ambulance service is linking ambulances to A and E departments using telemedicine. The national database of telemedicine provides many more examples of the excellent work that is being done to provide real benefits for patients across the country.
Telemedicine and telecare have the potential to transform a patient's experience of the health service by reducing inconvenience, shortening journeys and avoiding unnecessary referrals. They also present new opportunities to deliver and configure services and, as my hon. Friend has said, new opportunities for professional development. I recognise what he said about the need for changes in attitudes and work practices if telemedicine and telecare are to flourish. If we are to realise their full potential, we must be willing to communicate and work across professional and organisational boundaries.
The health service has made real progress in recent years, and I pay tribute to the enthusiasts whose energy and vision have carried us so far. Telemedicine and telecare are already being promoted and used in many examples such as NHS Direct, the information strategy, the national service frameworks, the A and E and pathology modernisation programmes, walk-in centres and the health action zones innovation fund.
We recognise the need for further research and I understand my hon. Friend's desire to ensure that telemedicine is evaluated. Our health technology
394
assessment programme is evaluating two telemedicine applications and on-going research is being carried out to underpin both "Information for Health" and telemedicine policy development.
My hon. Friend will be aware of the national beds inquiry, which we published for consultation on 10 February. It shows that, in any scenario, it is probable that the number of beds in the whole system, including those in intermediate care, nursing homes and residential homes, will need to increase. It suggests that the trend of the past 30 years—more hospital bed reductions—can no longer keep pace with the changing needs, additional activity and new services that the NHS will provide. It takes a whole-system perspective and considers hospital beds in the context of developments in primary care, community health services and social care as well as hospitals.
The facts revealed by the inquiry support the Government's plans to build a new bridge of NHS care for older people between hospital and home by developing a wide range of intermediate care services to prevent avoidable admissions, enhance rehabilitation and enable as many people as possible to maintain or regain functional independence in their own homes.
The Government have looked critically at telemedicine and telecare to see what can be done to bring about further development, and will continue to do so. We want telemedicine and telecare to be seen as options for service delivery. We have already said that, from 2000, all health improvement programmes and associated strategies will need to demonstrate that telemedicine and telecare options have been considered. We hope that that will be one way of ensuring that they are involved in the development of the health service, and will be introduced if they prove to be a way of including it.
I was struck by my hon. Friend's observation that the system in itself does not always involve a huge amount of capital investment. The necessary service can be provided at relatively low cost, but with tremendous benefit to patients.
Telemedicine and telecare are likely to play an important part in the addressing of national priorities. They will also have an impact on the provision of health-care information, providing links to NHS Direct, the national electronic library for health, the NHSNet and the electronic patient record.
In building a modern NHS and improving services for patients, we are focusing on the real opportunities that telemedicine and telecare represent. They will make it possible to deliver services more effectively, to move specialist expertise out of hospitals and into primary care, and to create the framework that is necessary to ensure that specialist skills are more widely accessible. The challenge will be the requirement to harness the information revolution to ensure that patients receive the best treatment, at the right time and in the most convenient place.
Our vision is of an NHS in which services are shaped around the convenience of patients. That means embracing technology to provide faster services. It means direct booking of hospital appointments, shorter waiting times for treatment, more rehabilitation services and more use of telemedicine, the internet and NHS Direct to bring care closer to home.
It is easy to underestimate the true impact of new technology. Two years after inventing the telephone,

395
Alexander Graham Bell made a famous prediction: he firmly believed that one day all cities and all companies would have telephones, and people would be able to talk to each other on them. That was greeted with cynicism at the time. In the same way, some people now feel that telemedicine may be a cheap option, and that it may not be possible to deliver such a service.
My hon. Friend, however, has seen the quality of the images being transmitted, and knows about the consultation that is possible between specialists who can exchange ideas and experience. When telemedicine is implemented well, the patient will often receive almost a better service, because that service draws on a much wider range of resources and expertise than is possible in conventional medicine.
396
Telemedicine is an extremely useful example of what we mean by modernisation. It also illustrates the fact that all the changes in the health service have a single aim: to improve the service to the patient by harnessing the skills of all NHS staff, while also harnessing the new technology. That may sometimes mean that certain people must take a deep breath and realise that technology is moving on, but it is in all our best interests.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an issue that is often overlooked. I am delighted to have been able to support his commitment to telemedicine. I assure him that the Government are determined to support that commitment, and will continue to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Sport
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
2.30 pm
The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): I am pleased to see so many hon. Members here on this Thursday afternoon to discuss our document "A Sporting Future for All". If I were being charitable, I would say that it was because they all cared deeply about sport and not because they wanted to avoid campaigning on the doorstep. Some of us are unable to do that today. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in what I hope will be an informative debate in which we can all feel free to intervene on each other and put our points of view across.
I want to take this opportunity to lay out some of the details and overall thinking behind "A Sporting Future for All", which was published on 5 April. To sum up the strategy, it attempts to give a lead in creating a more co-ordinated approach to improving sporting opportunities for all sections of the community and the country's performance in international competitions.
Those goals are inevitably connected, and we cannot differentiate between them or play one off against the other. It is worth attempting to increase participation in sport for its own sake. It is good for our health, it helps to build communities and it offers enjoyment and recreation. It also helps to increase the pool of talent from which we hope to draw our potential world and Olympic champions. Doing well in international competitions is also important in itself, as well as being wonderful for the individual athletes who participate and win. It helps sport generally, stimulates interest and involvement at the grass roots and encourages people to get involved. We all know what happens when we have done well in a football, tennis or athletics tournament. There is a lot of publicity, and our success helps to reinvigorate the sport at grass roots level.
The strategy has four main strands, and I shall deal first with what is happening in our schools, which is fundamental to the future of sport. The most important thing is that we have a clear commitment to improve sports provision in schools. It is almost too obvious to say—but it needs to be repeated—that we must get people young if we want them to develop a sporting habit and an interest in lifelong participation in sport. Over the years, all of us have been to blame for what has happened in that regard. The action that has been taken in our schools to win the interest of children—in particular, primary school children—and to get them to take part in sport has not been good enough.
I go round the country and see school after school at primary and secondary level doing wonderful things with sports and physical education. Some very good things are happening, and it is important that we do not forget that when we examine the overall situation.
114WH
Evidence is emerging from our specialist sports colleges that behaviour and academic performance improve where better sports and physical education are on offer. In too many schools, however, sport has been allowed to decline. We encounter run-down facilities, pressure on school time, insufficiently trained physical education teachers, declining levels of inter-school competition, and poor overall strategic management of school sport. Schools are the bedrock of sport, and those problems cannot be allowed to continue.
As the Minister for Sport, I can make all sorts of pronouncements, and so can my Department, but unless the Department for Education and Employment is fully signed up, we shall not make the changes. Our document is special and unique, because for the first time we have produced a sports strategy that has dual ownership with the schools education sector. There is a strong commitment to the strategy from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The Department is committed to all aspects of the policy relating to schools and education. That is a big step forward. We can have all the aspirations in the world to change things in schools, but we need the Department for Education and Employment to work with us, so I am delighted that we have its full support. That is why I was anxious soon after I was appointed to work with my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards to secure the appointment of Sue Campbell of the Youth Sport Trust to act as an adviser across Departments on physical education and school sport. That has been an extremely useful appointment, because officials who at times did not talk to each other or work together now do so, up to ministerial level.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: I detected that my hon. Friend was about to leave the subject of school sport. Can she say something about the concept of school sports co-ordinators? Having been a member of the Standing Committee that considered the recent National Lottery (Amendment) Bill, which created the New Opportunities Fund, I feel that they will form an important new link between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Employment.
Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is right. I shall mention the school sports co-ordinators.
Underpinning "A Sporting Future for All" is the need to offer a range of high-quality sporting opportunities to school-age children within and outside the school day, and to ensure that there are pathways to help them sustain their involvement beyond school age. We have identified aspects of school sports and physical education that need attention and have provided some resources to develop solutions. Our measures include the £150 million of new Government money to match lottery grants to help improve facilities in primary schools, many of which, despite being keen to help children undertake physical education activities, do not have the physical space or adequate facilities. The money will be used for primary schools, but we shall also ensure that schools that receive money for improving facilities will be open to community use after school and in the evenings. We want schools to become the heart of

115WH
their communities. This is already the case in many areas, but in too many more it has not happened, for all sorts of reasons.
We are committed to having 110 specialist sports colleges in place by 2003, and we are well on the way to meeting that target. These centres of sports excellence provide specialist teaching in addition to the usual curriculum to secure much better opportunities. Sports colleges are not intended to work in isolation. They should work with primary and secondary schools in their area and with the whole community, acting as a beacon of sporting excellence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) mentioned the announcement last year of £60 million of lottery funds for school sports co-ordinators. We are well on the way to ensuring that, from next September, co-ordinators will work with families of schools to give children more opportunities to participate in school sports activities. We announced last week the areas to which the first school sports co-ordinators will be sent. They will be based in areas with an excellence in cities initiative or in an education action or sports action zone, and in areas where there is a sports college. By September, 120 secondary schools and nearly 600 primary schools will be involved, because they will work with the families of primary and secondary school children and the sports college to help to raise the standard of physical education. It will not be a matter of putting a school sports co-ordinator into one school and then hoping that he or she will make improvements. There must be a partnership with the sports development officers in the local authority and with sports' governing bodies which may already have good development officers for cricket and rugby in the area.
"Joined up" is a dreadful phrase, but it is one that we often use, and it means that we will not act in isolation. When hon. Members see how the measures will work in their constituencies, everyone will clamour for them. We are keen for the plan to be rolled out and extended throughout the country.
We have focused, first, on communities with the greatest need, stressing the importance of sport and physical education in after-school activities. Some £160 million from the New Opportunities Fund and £80 million from the Department for Education and Employment standards fund will go to help to support out-of-school learning, which includes sport. Sport is not isolated.
School sport is crucial. I pay tribute to the role of physical education teachers who have pioneered many good initiatives over the years and at times struggled for excellence in spite of difficulties. We are working closely with the national organisations for physical education and I hope that those teachers feel that for the first time there is a policy document that recognises the importance of their role in sport.
The second strand of the strategy concerns lifelong participation. We need to ensure that young people who take up sport at school have a good experience and continue to participate when they leave. There is evidence that participation falls off in the post-school years. Links must be established and maintained with schools and other providers, such as local authorities,
116WH
voluntary and commercial clubs, and professional clubs, to help people move into adult provision. We shall take steps to remove obstacles that, for one reason or another, prevent people from making the most of their abilities. Sports' governing bodies, local authorities and the funding organisations know that social inclusion must be at the heart of what they do because sport is one of the best ways of breaking down barriers in our society. It must be used to its full potential.
Sport, as we know from many studies, really can make a difference to young people, helping them to turn away from crime, truancy and drug addiction. Sport is a vehicle that can deliver so many Government policies. It is important to spend money at the right time, because it can save money in the long term.
We have a lot to be proud of in how we participate in and run sport. Anyone who knows and cares about sport gets fed up with it always being knocked, when in fact many good things are happening. More than 1.5 million people voluntarily give up their time to help young people take part in sporting activities; they get involved in evening clubs and do things just for the love of it. Self-help in sport is important.
Inequalities remain, however. More men than women participate and social class is a real issue. The rate of participation of some ethnic minority groups is still well below the national average and older people, who can benefit most from mild physical activity, participate far less than any other group.
Sports development officers are crucial to keep people involved. It is a growing phenomenon that local authorities are employing people whose job is to develop sport and work closely with others. However, we heard many times during our consultation period about the lack of good quality training for development officers. I am pleased that the National Association of Sports Development Officers has been set up and we are determined to support such groups.
We recognise the importance of a wide provision of facilities accessible to all members of the community. One of our dilemmas over the next few years is what to do about the fabric of many buildings under local authority provision. We have asked the English Sports Council to conduct an audit to show what facilities are available in which areas. Some local authorities persevered over many years of cuts and managed to protect their buildings, but in some authorities sport was the first facility to be chopped and it failed to secure further investment. The need for a massive improvement will become apparent and will have to be taken into account for implementation.
Over the next 10 years between £1.5 billion and £2 billion will be spent on community sport, particularly in areas identified in the audit as requiring more support. It is worth repeating that we would have had a different debate six years ago when not nearly so much money was available for investment in sport. People are aware that huge sums have come from the lottery. We should remember where we were six years ago and be determined to spend the money in the best way possible in pursuit of a strategy—avoiding ad hoc spending, which can depend on how good a governing body or local authority is. There must be an overall plan as to how best to spend the money in the interests of the whole country.

117WH
Playing fields are an important issue, about which many people are concerned. Despite some of the headlines and reported figures, we are delivering our manifesto commitment on playing fields. The average rate of disposal of school playing fields has dropped from 40 to three per month. If sales have been allowed to proceed, it is because they will be offset by the provision of better facilities. There will always be an argument, of course, about what constitutes better facilities. In most cases, the sales are justified if better community sports facilities and open space of some sort are available at the end of the process. We cannot say simply that nothing must ever be sold off. Even the National Playing Fields Association accepts that a diktat never to sell anything is unrealistic. We need a proper mechanism to allow proper consideration of the options and to establish whether better facilities will result at the end of the process.
As a result of our strategy, a monitoring unit will regularly examine what is happening, establish what has gone wrong and make suggestions for improvement. We also wish to establish an on-going advisory committee with the active involvement of the NPFA, which has led the way over many years in campaigning to protect playing fields and to raise awareness of the issue. If I have not always agreed with Elsa Davies, I fully commend her for her single-handed commitment to this important issue, which she has not allowed us to forget.
I wish to flag up the important role of local amateur sports clubs throughout the country. We wish them to link more effectively with schools and to establish networks to provide good junior teams, coaching and so forth to cater for every level of ability. It is important for such clubs to be open and welcoming to all. Governing bodies have a responsibility to ensure that they take the lead on that. Under the terms of Exchequer and lottery awards, they must adhere to agreed equal opportunities policies.
We are also trying to encourage governing bodies—particularly in top level professional sport—to do much more and put some of their income from the sale of broadcasting rights through to the grass roots. We will make an announcement soon about the Football Foundation and the 5 per cent. that will come from the premier league and the Football Association. Football can afford to put more money down to the grass roots, and we must ensure that it does.
Other sports have also received money. Cricket has already put substantial amounts of money down to the grass roots, and tennis is doing the same. We want to ensure that that happens at all professional clubs, because if they want the game at the top level to develop, they must ensure that they support the grass roots.
Everyone recognises the undoubted direct link between international sporting success and wider participation at home. If more people are involved at the bottom, more people will have opportunities to reach the top. However, we cannot continue to rely on that happening by chance, as has been the case for far too much of our sporting excellence, with someone seeing a talented person in the right place, picking them up, helping them, coaching them and supporting them. No clear pathway has existed to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to go from the bottom levels of competition to the top.
118WH
We want all sports bodies to adopt a more strategic approach to the delivery of sporting programmes. Governing bodies must actively encourage clubs and their coaches to work in schools and the communities, as many are doing. Those bodies need to build on existing best practice. We all know from what is happening in our own areas that there is a lot of good practice and that many people are beavering away in our constituencies doing excellent work. They never seem to be thanked by anybody or receive any lottery money. No one ever seems to say, "You're doing a great job. With just a little extra money, what more could you do?"
I am determined that we should move away from the idea that everything always has to be new—new initiatives always coming along and new people coming in and telling others what to do. That is not the role of the Sports Council; it exists to set an overall strategic view and ensure that funding is accountable. We have to co-operate with those who are already doing the work, often with no reward.
The third strand is talent development. Talented players do not emerge automatically. If people are to progress, they must receive the right coaching and support at every stage. Obviously, schools and clubs are the first step. We are asking everybody in sport to pay particular attention to ensuring that they have talent development systems that pick up and nurture able competitors.
Many of our competitor countries have systems that are very different from ours. Many are based on a much stronger local club structure. In France, very little goes on in schools and all the sport happen in clubs. I do not think that we can adopt that system, and I would not want to, because our schools do an extremely good job. They have done things differently, but I think that we can help our clubs to develop. Clubs should be at the centre of a network of feeder clubs. That is already happening in swimming. In Leeds, the Amateur Swimming Association has organised a sophisticated swimming club system that ensures that young swimmers have a clear way of moving forward and are not isolated from the beginning.
Rugby union has done great work on feeder clubs, offering opportunities for youngsters to get involved for the first time and giving them a clear idea of where they should go next. We need to encourage more of our governing bodies and sports to develop the idea of hub and satellite clubs, and we will work closely with governing bodies and local authorities to develop a comprehensive system of satellite clubs.
The fourth and final strand to the strategy is improvement of the support that we give to our top-performing athletes. The UK Sports Institute and world-class programmes will make a huge difference. Already, the support that can be given to our top athletes has changed, and we hope that we will see some effects of that at the Olympics, although these things take time. A development and support system does not appear overnight, and it may not happen in time for this year's Olympics, although I hope that we will make improvements on Atlanta.
Because of its nationwide network of high performance facilities and support services, the UK Sports Institute will have a major impact on the development of excellence in this country among both

119WH
those already achieving success at the highest sporting levels and those aspiring to follow in the footsteps of their idols. The UKSI will provide our top performers with access to the highest quality sports science, sports medicine, coaching and athlete education and career programmes.
In England, plans for seven of the 10 regions were announced last October, and up to £120 million of lottery funds will be invested between now and 2001 in the English Institute of Sport. Good progress is under way in Bath, Loughborough and Manchester, and detailed designs are in preparation with the aim of starting work this autumn, if not before. Good progress is also being made in the network centres developed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
We are meeting all the UK sports councils to find out how to ensure that the services and the buildings are delivered as quickly as possible, in accordance with all the normal accountability criteria. If we do not move quickly, we could miss out. For whatever reasons, the process has already taken too long. Everybody accepts that. There is no point going back and blaming anybody or anything. Although we have taken far too long to reach our current position, we will now begin to see a real change. Each institute must apply to the lottery for bits of the overall cake, and I am considering ways of ensuring that the mechanisms for such applications are made as easy as possible, taking the normal accountability procedures into account. We do not want another layer of bureaucracy, and I am afraid that, at the moment, the process is full of bureaucracy that does not improve accountability or serve any purpose. It needs to be examined and changed, and I am pleased that the English Sports Council and the sports councils are keen to tackle that.
The UKSI is more than just bricks and mortar. We must make every endeavour to establish support services as soon as possible, even if the facilities are not in place. The athlete career and education programme, known as ACE, is up and running, and providing selected athletes with personal development courses to meet individual needs in financial planning, media training and nutritional advice. Thirty accredited facilitators have been appointed, and about 250 athletes from more than 20 sports have undergone a personal assessment. A high-performance coaching programme has also been introduced to provide sport and coach-specific personalised programmes ranging from information technology skills to specific training sessions.
Other support programmes are being developed to provide access to sports technology and expertise, data information systems and analysis, sports medicine and sports science, and medical insurance. We are a long way from the days when I was involved in sport. Now, athletes need to be very good not only at what they do, but at understanding the jargon and how to use systems to perform better.
We expect everything to be fully operational by summer 2002, and I am pleased that we have set that deadline. To deliver the aspirations of individual sports and athletes, all the parties must have a common aim and the will to work closely together to ensure that decisions are reached speedily, efficiently and effectively
120WH
and are geared to the athletes and the coaches, not the organisations. We have talked about the UKSI concept for so long that we are now ready for action.
In striving for sporting excellence and progress we must also ensure that we create the right environment for all competitors to achieve success on their own merits and hard work. Everyone who cares about sport knows that drug abuse in sport is just plain cheating. We are strongly committed to measures to eliminate such abuse. We spend over £1 million a year on ensuring the quality of the UK's drug testing programme, and this country was the first worldwide to achieve ISO 9002 accreditation for its testing system. We have also been working closely with our international partners in the fight against drug misuse in sport, and we played an important role in the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency last November.
The recent spate of positive tests, especially for the banned steroid nandrolone, has called into question our commitment to stamping out drug misuse in this country and dealing with the culprits effectively. That must be seen in the context of the more than 5,000 tests carried out in the UK, 1.5 per cent. of which produced a reported finding and not all of those proved to be positive. However, we must not be complacent. While this taint of drugs remains, it is bad for the development of sport, particularly for youngsters.
Mr. Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The concern is about how the international athletics community deals with the whole issue of nandrolone. A number of cases are outstanding and the Olympic games are coming up. Some of the athletes who have been caught with nandrolone, rightly or wrongly, could be competing in Sydney. Has she had an opportunity not only to consider that, but to tell our international partners that we need to deal with the issue of nandrolone as a matter of urgency?
Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is right that nandrolone is causing huge concern at the moment. UK Athletics, more than any other body, is concerned about the situation. There is a problem, and I do not think that the governing body of the sport should be involved at all levels with testing, with decisions about guilt and with the setting of penalties. We must find a way of making that process independent from the governing body of the sport. There is a logical reason for that: as everyone knows, the British Athletics Federation went bankrupt over the Diane Modahl case. Clearly, sport itself must contribute something to the establishment of an independent process, but the Government may also have to find ways of ensuring that we have an independent system—not for testing, as we already have that, but for dealing with athletes after they have been tested. I am working closely with Dave Moorcroft on that problem, as UK Athletics is very concerned about it. It affects the whole of sport.
The organisers in Sydney are particularly keen that it should be a drug-free Olympics and are doing all that they can. The problem, if we are honest, is that individuals will always find ways of getting round the system. The more that technology and science find ways to test, the more people will try to get round them. For those of us who have been around in sport for a long time, that is one of the unhappiest aspects of the way

121WH
that sport is going. It is so depressing for everyone involved. I remain determined to ensure that the UK's systems and procedures, while retaining the respect of competitors, continue to have the support of the public, who must be sure that the results are genuine and fair.
In implementing "A Sporting Future for All", I am conscious that we are asking a great deal of many people involved in sport. That is right, because Governments do not run sport. We cannot—indeed, we would not want to—decide who goes to the Olympic games or determine the best way to develop a particular sport. We must always remember that sports have experts. Nevertheless, the Government must develop strategies, set minimum standards and assume an overall leadership role in sport.
We have placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of our governing bodies for sport. In return for their commitment to delivering greater participation, better talent development and the best support for our top competitors, they will have greater financial autonomy. That is what governing bodies want, especially those that can handle large amounts of money and satisfy us that they can honour all the commitments for which we have asked. Once governing bodies can show that they manage and plan robustly and that their management systems operate satisfactorily, they will receive more control over the funding that their sport receives. We are empowering the key stakeholders in sport to ensure its long-term, sustainable development. The theme of sustainability runs through the document. Although the word is not mentioned, it is a key to it. We do not want one-day wonders of instant, knee-jerk success—although that is usually nice, because it produces good headlines. We want measures that will last and will genuinely make a difference. Part of the document's importance is that it will be judged not next year or even in three years' time, but in 10 years' time on how much it has genuinely made a difference.
We shall ensure that the document does not simply sit on a shelf like so many other documents that successive parties have produced. We have created a strategy implementation group, the first meeting of which will be on 24 May. The people invited to serve on that group have been invited as individuals rather than as representatives of a particular group or organisation. Their backgrounds draw on all spheres of sporting life and achievement. Collectively, the group's experience will form a great spectrum of sporting knowledge and practice, focusing particularly on education in the community and excellence. The group will propose the measures necessary to make the strategy work, and in the autumn, we shall make further announcements. It is a genuine opportunity for follow-through. We are not merely using warm words. It is easy to use warm words about sport—as, indeed, Governments do—but, as I continually remind my colleagues, we must provide the resources and cross-departmental support that sport is beginning to receive.
We are pleased with the welcome that the document has received from all sections of the country. It is a document that people sit down and read, as it will relate to their aspect of their particular sport or expertise. I thank all the people who contributed to it. I am especially enthused when I travel around the country to discover the passion that people have for sport. We have achieved a great deal, and absolutely nothing can be
122WH
blamed on individuals. We must put all available resources into harnessing all current developments and ensure that they form part of a partnership with a clear strategy for the way forward. The Government's role in that is to lead key players in delivering sporting opportunity and excellence. We shall work in partnership with schools and other education institutions, local government, sports councils and national governing bodies for sport.
There is much to look forward to. With the help of world-class events funding, we have done well to bring major sporting events to our country. We relish the thought of the indoor and outdoor world athletics championships. The Commonwealth games come to Manchester in 2002, and the rugby league world cup will be staged in the autumn. Last year, we held the cricket and rugby union world cups.
We look forward to receiving soon a report of the British Olympic Association's preparation, discussions and thinking on the feasibility of hosting the Olympic games. It is not possible merely to wake up in the morning and decide to host them; it is a huge undertaking, and there is no point in our ever thinking of trying to do so unless everyone gives the attempt total support. That support would have to go beyond mere words.
I send my best wishes to all our athletes going to Sydney. The BOA is an extremely professionally run organisation, which has done a terrific job to ensure that we have a sophisticated, highly trained and organised group going there. The camp that it has set up on the west coast has given many of our young athletes the opportunity of warm-weather training. We hope to be successful in the Olympic games but, whatever the outcome, it will be an opportunity to sell sport to our young people.
I have given a comprehensive report about the document; I appreciate that it has been slightly long. I look forward to hearing hon. Members' responses, and hope that we can work together across party to ensure that sport in our country thrives and that everyone has the opportunity to participate.
3.11 pm
Mr. John Greenway: How often have we heard leading players say how fortunate they are to earn their living playing sport and doing what they enjoy best? Notwithstanding other attractions today, we are fortunate to have the opportunity to do what many of us most enjoy doing, which is talking about sport. I see that some hon. Members with whom I have enjoyed talking about sport over the years are present.
I mean no disrespect, but I would have preferred an annual debate about sport to be held on the Floor of the House. Also, we should have avoided holding our debate on an election day. I see some nods of agreement; I apportion no blame to anyone present.
We take a steer from the shadow Culture Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), and the Prime Minister. Both began forewords to recently published documents with the words "Sport matters". We can all agree with that. Sport is vital to the physical health of the nation. It is a huge, multi-billion pound industry. At its best, sport is

123WH
exciting, passionate and hugely enjoyable. It can help to improve our quality of life. As the Minister said, the massive and invaluable contribution made to sport by volunteers is testament to its huge popularity.
Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman has confused me. I can clearly see the foreword by the Prime Minister that starts with the words "Sport matters", but he mentioned another document with a foreword by an inconsequential Conservative Front Bencher. Is it in the Library for hon. Members to see?
Mr. Greenway: On 31 January, more than two months before the Government published their document, the Conservative party published a blue paper. It was circulated to every sporting body in the country. Its objectives were greatly acclaimed and many of its ideas—surprise, surprise—turned up in the Government's document. I did not intend to be quite so partisan, but the hon. Gentleman has goaded me into it.
Sport is important for many reasons. It has health-related benefits. It teaches people to win and lose with equanimity. It can improve cognitive skills such as literacy and numeracy; anyone watching the final couple of frames of the world snooker championships would almost need a calculator to work out, from the points left on the table, who was about to win. It can also help reduce the level of crime by channelling aggression and can play an important role in dismantling social and ethnic barriers. It can help to protect and enhance environments and play a part in stimulating the economic regeneration of local communities. Local sport and leisure facilities are an important source of employment and can provide a healthy social focal point for the community. Only yesterday, I received a briefing note that stated that 14 per cent. of adults work out in a gym—speaking of which, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is the honorary president of the Fitness Industry Association. For all those reasons, sport matters.
In our aspirations for sport and the importance that we accord it, there is considerable common ground between the Government and the Opposition. The Minister and I do not just share a keen interest in the fortunes of Arsenal football club; we also have a shared interest in the future of sport at every level. Nevertheless, politics being what it is, there are clear differences of view between us, some of which I shall detail later. The Minister said that we have much to be proud of. I agree. We are glad that much of what the Government are doing and plan to do takes forward the Conservative Government's policy initiatives, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I have consulted sporting bodies around the country over the past three months and have found high regard for what my right hon. Friend did. He took a personal interest in sport and his achievements included the publication of the White Paper on sport, "Raising the Game", the creation of the Sports Council and the implementation of important projects such as the UK Sports Institute and a national network of centres of sporting excellence to coach and nurture potential world champion sports men and women.
124WH
The Minister referred to Bath University, which I recently visited, as she had a short time earlier. Anyone interested in seeing a centre of excellence based at one of our regional universities should visit Bath University and witness best practice in operation. Jed Roddy, whose concept the whole project was, has achieved tremendous things and set a target of five medals at the Sydney Olympics for his team. We wish them all every success.
Although we are pleased with the Government's commitment to continuing our policy of establishing a UK Sports Institute—I very much welcome what the Minister said this afternoon—and the fact that the institute should be fully operational by 2002, I have to tease her a little by telling her that people in Yorkshire are not best pleased with the Government's U-turn on their original promise to site the institute in Sheffield.
Mr. Andrew Reed: While the hon. Gentleman is making a regional tour of Britain, will he acknowledge the great contribution of Loughborough to the UK Sports Institute? The people in Loughborough are grateful that Sheffield was not chosen as the headquarters. More importantly, the original concept that we inherited in 1997 was of a single hub. Will the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that regional centres are much more important?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that interventions must be brief.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Loughborough, because it was there that the Conservative party held an extremely successful "Listening to Britain" meeting, which informed our new policy. One cannot name all the relevant places, but the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that what is happening in Loughborough is as commendable as what is happening in Bath. I hope to pay the people in Loughborough a visit soon; it is convenient, because I can call in on the way down from Yorkshire.
There is no doubt that policy initiatives develop as they go along. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there must be regional centres, and the number and sitting of them is something that the UKSI has been working on. The Secretary of State should be a little careful, however; he eulogised over the choice of Sheffield and then, a year or two later, said that things had gone completely wrong there. It is not the first time that he has done something like that. People are given encouragement and then their hopes are dashed. I stress the point that people in Sheffield are extremely disappointed by that change of view.
We are pleased that the Government have acknowledged in their document the importance of the national lottery, which has proved an invaluable resource for sport. Some time next week, Sport England will reach the total of £1 billion of support given to sporting centres. That money has supported 3,000 projects, and we should congratulate Sport England on that tremendous achievement. I was grateful to the Minister for her acknowledgement that the lottery has transformed the landscape of sporting provision.
Vital though the lottery has been, however, we should not overlook the important contributions made by other funding arrangements such as the sports match

125WH
scheme, which was started in 1992. Its contribution of more than £3 million a year is now subsumed in Sport England's grant and aid. The Foundation for Sport and the Arts was particularly important before the lottery was established. The Football Trust, in common with that foundation, relied heavily on Treasury support through rebates of betting tax and on support from the pools. I know from my work on the all-party football group that there was huge cross-party support for those rebates.
Like the Minister, we look forward to the launch of the Football Foundation, which will give people at the top of the football pile—especially the very rich premier league—the opportunity to invest directly in the grass roots of sport through the 5 per cent. contribution. I hope that football will not be the only beneficiary, because many of the facilities can be used by other sports. Together with significant help from business and broadcasters through sponsorship, that new money has transformed the United Kingdom's sporting infrastructure, to the benefit of spectators and participants of all levels of ability.
It is impossible to see how the Government's objectives could be realised without the support of the lottery. The Minister has acknowledged the extent to which lottery funding will be the mainstay of the Government's programme. However, we should ask whether the resource of the lottery fund will prove sufficient to match the spending priorities that the Government has set out as well as all the other commitments that it has to meet. The Government has not acknowledged in their sports strategy that sport now gets a smaller slice of the lottery cake than before; the creation of the new opportunities fund has resulted in a significant reduction in its share. The lottery has been raided to pay for health, education and environment projects. I remind the Minister that, when in opposition, the Labour party said that such things should always be paid for out of core Treasury expenditure. In effect, the sports lottery fund will be reduced by £50 million of current lottery ticket sales. The Central Council of Physical Recreation has called for sport's original one fifth of lottery funding to be reinstated at the end of this year, when the millennium fund expires. The Government has chosen to divert millennium fund receipts to the new opportunities fund. As a result, the new opportunities fund will attract one third of all lottery receipts. The Government has obviously made up their mind. The key issue is the use of that one third, and the extent to which the arm's length principle will be maintained.
Mr. Caplin: As I said to my hon. Friend the Minister, the new opportunities fund can be used in relation to projects such as school sports co-ordinators. One cannot pigeonhole each of the categories of the lottery, which extend across government. Perhaps the Tories should get used to that.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. On the issue of school sports co-ordinators, the blue paper responses suggest that they should be PE teachers.
Kate Hoey: Yes, they will be.
Mr. Greenway: I am told that they will be. It is no disrespect to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin),
126WH
as he was not then a Member of Parliament, but I can remember the debates when the lottery was established, and the idea that lottery money should be used to fund the salaries of teachers was totally alien to Labour Members at the time. If NOF is to be used in ways that enhance and improve sport facilities, that is all to the good. If we are to retain an arm's length principle, however, to what extent can Ministers guarantee that NOF will always deliver, and that it will not use the money in other ways? The same degree of control cannot be exercised over NOF as over the Department's budget.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has so far mentioned every funding stream available to sport apart from central Government expenditure. Is that because of embarrassment? In the last two years of the previous Conservative Government, the budget for sport declined by 6.7 per cent. and 6.5 per cent.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has a cheek to introduce an argument about funding. It has just been pointed out that in the last three or four years of the previous Conservative Government, who introduced the lottery, sport was made one of the main beneficiaries. You may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that originally, there were to be only four good causes, and sport was to receive a quarter of the money. Under the Labour Government, it is receiving a sixth. The Conservative party, especially on the basis of recent years, should not have to take any lessons from the Labour party in terms of its commitment to funding sport. Sport England's budget is in excess of £40 million a year—
Mr. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Greenway: No. We have a great deal to discuss. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a row about resources, I suggest that he reads the Government's document, which acknowledges that £1 billion of lottery money has been made available to fund 3,000 projects.
The Minister has told us that the Government's strategy will provide £150 million for 300 centres in primary schools. I am not saying that such initiatives are not worthwhile; they are, and we support them. However, those hon. Members who are getting excited about sport funding must acknowledge, as the Minister has, that the lottery has effected a transformation. We are debating the extent to which lottery money can be used to support new initiatives in schools and sports clubs throughout the country, to give every child a sporting chance. That is what the strategy is supposed to be about.
The document says that NOF has already committed £125 million to its green spaces initiative—among other things, for playing fields. However, despite wanting to take decisions at arm's length, NOF's consultative paper, published last September, stated that purchasing land was not a priority. That must be cleared up.
The Government say that the space for sport and the arts initiative will provide up to £150 million—£75 million each from the Exchequer and the lottery—to primary schools to provide new multi-purpose sport

127WH
and arts facilities for children in the wider community. Will the Minister explain how that initiative is to work? How will it be paid for? From which lottery source will the £75 million be drawn? The Government say that Sport England is said to have agreed to ring-fence 20 per cent. of lottery funds for youth sport, the bulk of which is to be spent in schools. Is that 20 per cent. the £75 million, or is it a separate amount? The sports lottery fund receives £250 million a year, and 20 per cent. of that is only £50 million.
The document commits NOF to providing £160 million to support out-of-school-hours learning, with special emphasis on sport and physical education. That is on top of the £125 million for open spaces. I know that that money probably covers more than one year, but collectively it is more than NOF receives now. Will the Minister explain, if necessary in writing, how those sums add up and whether the funding bodies have signalled their agreement? More important, what assessment has been made of how Sport England and NOF are to respond to other funding requests? I do not suggest that the money is being targeted at anything other than worthy causes, but we are concerned that the sums should add up and that expectations are not raised that cannot be fulfilled.
The Minister mentioned the need to reinvest in fabric. I agree with her that a great many sporting facilities, particularly those run by local authorities, are in desperate need of refurbishment, but lottery funding has never been made available. All those factors add to the demands made on the lottery.
We have considerable sympathy with the need to streamline the structure of sport governance and to improve accountability. The document refers to the possibility of sports bodies being made more accountable to lottery players. Will decisions for lottery spending be delegated to sport governing bodies and away from Sport England? If so, those governing bodies will have the difficult responsibility of declining entirely worthy applications, because so much of the sports lottery fund will be pre-committed.
We must also bear in mind the fact that the sports lottery fund will have to meet its commitment on the cost of the Commonwealth games in Manchester, and will probably have to make a contribution to the costs of the proposed new stadium at Pickett's Lock for the world athletics championships.
I repeat that our generous support for investments in facilities in schools and local clubs will provide sporting opportunities for young people. A new sports pavilion was recently opened at Malton in my constituency. That initiative was instigated by the Fitzwilliam sports association. The proposal was twice turned down, but we kept at it and on the third occasion we received the money. It is a £200,000 sports lottery fund project. Boys and girls will now be sure of the best facilities when they play cricket, hockey and soccer. The pavilion is next to the rugby union ground, which has also been the target of a big sports lottery project. Youngsters of all levels and ages can play in the teams, which are often their only opportunity to engage in competitive team sport, as so many of them go to schools with few pupils.
128WH
We believe that all of that is important, and we greatly welcome the Government's acknowledgment that the level of provision of sport in schools is unacceptable. I apportion no blame to the Minister. However, the position has unquestionably deteriorated during the past three years. The curriculum has become too prescriptive, the effects of which have been confirmed by Sport England and in a number of surveys, including the Adidas report. Last August, the sport and physical education network, which is based at Leeds Metropolitan university, published a survey showing that more than half a million hours of physical education had been lost in primary schools alone in the previous six years. The survey showed that the decline had featured especially in the three or four years prior to its publication, as cuts had been made to make time for literacy and numeracy work.
That approach must change and I entirely endorse the Minister's remarks in that respect. What schools do should be rather less prescribed. If they had greater freedom in the management of pupil time, there would be a significant increase in the amount of sport played within and between them. We agree with the Minister that school sports co-ordinators have a role to play in achieving that. I am looking forward to seeing what can be achieved, especially in a huge rural area that has many small primary schools but not enough kids of the right age group for one even to think of forming teams that can play inter-school soccer or cricket. The target of 600 co-ordinators is ambitious, but we share that objective.
We note the Government's commitment to the creation of 110 specialist sports colleges by 2003. That was initially another Conservative policy initiative and it is not without controversy. We want more specialist schools, and not just for sport, although sports schools are especially important. We believe that that is a good idea, but that schools and colleges should themselves determine whether to specialise and the manner in which they should do so. More important, the existence of specialist sports colleges must not be used as an excuse for neglecting sport in mainstream schools. It is a cause for concern that the strategy document is very brief on mainstream secondary schools. For that reason, we are concerned that the title "A Sporting Future for All" conveys an aspiration that may not be matched for every child.
Mr. Reed: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the use of school sports co-ordinators and specialist sports colleges achieves the aims about which he is speaking? Burleigh college, in my constituency, has shown that the two go together.
Mr. Greenway: I thought that I had encouraged the thought that the aims can be achieved in such a manner. I am merely saying that the strategy document places huge emphasis on primary schools. It is right to do so, in many respects. I think that it was Trevor Brooking who, when Sport England published its recent survey on the decline in physical education and sport in schools, commented on how important it was to focus properly on the five to eight-year-olds, as that is the age range when one can achieve most with a child. I agree with all that, but I am concerned that there is still a gap in provision in the secondary school sector. There has been

129WH
rather too much emphasis against competitive team games for the 14 to 16-year-old age group, although one understands the reasons why.
The Minister mentioned the vexed issue of the sale of school playing fields. From my personal experience as a county councillor and a school governor, I know that school land can sometimes be sold without damaging sports provision. A few years ago, in one school in my constituency, land sales paid for significant capital expenditure on school buildings without detriment to sporting provision. However, there is no doubt from the communications received by hon. Members that many sporting bodies remain concerned that school playing fields and sports pitches continue to be sold. I listened to the Minister's remarks on the subject, and appreciate that she has acknowledged in Culture, Media and Sport questions in the House that such sales have continued. One cannot say that the policy is being delivered and acknowledge that sales are continuing because the policy was to stop all sales.
Kate Hoey: The policy is very clear: it is to stop the compulsory sale of playing fields, which is very different, as the hon. Gentleman would recognise if he is fair.
Mr. Greenway: I note the Minister's clarification. I am about to be extremely fair because I want to make two important points that were set out in our blue paper and also included in the Government's strategy.
We called for an audit of all playing fields and sports facilities in order to create a national database. I am astounded that that has not been done before. It is completely illogical to try to determine what is required in various parts of the country without knowing what already exists. I subscribe to the theory that more affluent areas have been able to get sports lottery projects up and running, whereas more run-down and deprived areas, which do not have the business acumen or the support from local communities, have been unable to provide matching funding. We desperately need a database. Only then can we have any idea whether the sale of land will damage sporting provision. We also called for planning policy guidance to be strengthened—another proposal in the strategy. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that more work needs to be done.
While highlighting areas of agreement, I want to mention two other important issues, neither of which was touched on by the Minister, but on which we have made recommendations that were also mentioned in the document. The first is the need for a cross-departmental forum for sport. The Minister said that it was important for the Department for Education and Employment and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to work together. However, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions also has an extremely important role to play. We must have more joined-up government, not just between Departments but between national and local government, if we are to have the desired impact.
The other area of agreement is the hope to improve sporting opportunities for ethnic minorities and to tackle exclusion in all respects. That is also mentioned in the strategy document.
I want to mention one or two issues on which we believe the Government should have said more. The first relates to voluntary clubs. The Minister paid tribute
130WH
more than once to the work of volunteers. Certainly, in the three months or so since I have had this job, I have been impressed by the scale of voluntary action, without which a great deal of sporting opportunity would not exist. However, several issues relating to finance require some fresh thinking, and I have no doubt that we in the Conservative party and the Minister will have to argue with the shadow Treasury team and Treasury Ministers to get some sense across.
Many clubs are not registered charities. As a consequence, they lose out on VAT exemption and discretionary rate relief. I received a delegation to my surgery from the York district sports council, which emphasised the considerable concerns of several long-established sports clubs in the York area that originally benefited from the financial support of a major employer, such as Rowntree, the railways and the civil service, which no longer provide that support. They are now facing substantial rates bills because of the revaluation of their facilities. Many of those revaluations result from improvements that were funded by the lottery. I have agreed to investigate the matter in the York area, and I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to receive a report of my findings. In congratulating ourselves on funding capital projects, we must also be aware of revenue implications. Discretionary rate relief is often the only revenue support that many clubs receive from their local authority.
The document mentions the need to attract national and international events to the UK. I hope that people will realise that my comments on Wembley stadium and the plans for Pickett's Lock are intended to be constructive and positive. It saddens me that the Wembley stadium project has become the subject of ridicule. A story on it appears in the national press every week. I was astounded by the Minister's written replies to me this week. She confirmed that Ministers have known for two years that Brent council would insist on £30 million capital infrastructure investment, and that those matters have been discussed in the Wembley task force that was established by the Culture Secretary and which has departmental representation. The Minister, however, confirmed that there has been no cross-departmental discussion at ministerial level.
I raised my concerns from the Back Benches during Culture, Media and Sport questions before I became the shadow Minister for Sport. I was told that I would be unnecessarily alarmist if I suggested that Wembley might not get the go-ahead or be ready for planned events. Sadly, that is how the situation is starting to look. Only last July, the Secretary of State said that Wembley would be the centrepiece of the Government's campaign to attract the world's premier sporting events to this country, and that he and the Prime Minister had taken every opportunity to associate them with England's world cup bid. I applaud them for that, but it is reasonable to expect them to intervene and, as Ken Bates said to me a week or two ago, to bang some heads together to resolve the infrastructure issues.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hove has left the Chamber because he was part of a delegation that recently met the leader of Brent council, Paul Daisley, and its chief environmental officer. They were entirely happy with the design of the stadium. There was nothing wrong with it. We are all in favour of England's world

131WH
cup bid, and I have been grateful for the Culture Secretary's comments at recent events on my support for it. However, the bid would be greatly assisted if consent were granted, even if it were subject to a condition on infrastructure. Having won the right to stage the 2006 world cup, there would not be a huge problem in persuading the private sector to invest in the Wembley area through partnership schemes. That would help to ensure that Brent council puts in place what is necessary for the local community. I hope that anyone who reads our debate would agree that common sense should prevail, even at this late hour. It would be catastrophic if the project were turned down and there was a year or more of appeal and argument.
Wembley has also been something of a shambles in relation to athletics. Last July, the Secretary of State endorsed the new stadium as a suitable venue for international athletics. However, in December he told the House that he was concerned about the viability of the proposed solution. The speed with which the Labour-dominated Select Committee criticised the Minister's decision only served to highlight the mismanagement. The design for Wembley remains unaltered and it will be capable of hosting athletics should the need arise. As the Minister hinted, the Culture Secretary has endorsed the Pickett's Lock site at Enfield as the preferred venue for the world athletics championship. I note from written answers that the Secretary of State's commitment to the International Amateur Athletics Federation is simply for London to provide a suitable venue.
I was at Pickett's Lock on the morning on which the IAAF decision was made in Paris. I can understand why Sport England and the Lea Valley regional park authority offered Pickett's Lock as a suitable venue. However, no one should be under any illusion—a formidable programme of work must be achieved if the 2005 championships are to take place on the site. There is an existing sports centre with an indoor bowling club for the elderly—5,000 people play there regularly. There is no provision for them to go anywhere else. Improvements to transport infrastructure are possible. A railway station right outside the front door and a motorway link can be built. However, we all know how long such projects take to plan and to bring to fruition. We need an accommodation block for at least 3,000 athletes. There are no plans or costings and, we would argue, no money.
Another important question is whether Pickett's Lock would be suitable as a venue at which London could host the Olympic Games, perhaps in 2012. Like the Minister, we are looking forward to considering the British Olympic Association's feasibility study later in the year. I would like the Minister to tell us what the Government's response would be if the BOA found against Pickett's Lock. A problem that I can envisage concerns accommodation. I understand that one would need up to 10 times the number of beds for an Olympic games as for a world athletics championship.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My constituents have already identified an excellent spot for the accommodation
132WH
venue. It is currently RAF Northolt, which generates 13,000 flights, all of which are very irritating to them. The site would be much better used for housing.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we have too many publicity advances, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) might continue.
Mr. Greenway: Middlesex university would be interested in building accommodation for about 3,000 people at a site at Pickett's Lock about a mile from the existing sports stadium. That would be enough for the world athletics championships but nowhere near enough for an Olympic games.
For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm for the Minister that, on the day on which I visited Pickett's Lock, I issued a press statement endorsing the selection of the site. I emphasised the challenging programme of work needed to accomplish the promise made. The more one examines the issues, the more challenging that programme becomes. What has happened concerning Wembley does not inspire confidence, not only in we politicians but in others outside Parliament, especially in the media, who are only too keen to take advantage if things start to go awry.
Whether in bidding for the football world cup in 2006, the world athletics championships and the Olympic games or ensuring the success of the Commonwealth games in Manchester in two years' time, the Conservative party will give the Government and the sports bodies concerned every possible support. However-I hope that the Minister will take the comment in the spirit in which it is offered-we have a duty as the official Opposition to ask the questions that must be addressed to ensure that the Government play their full part in fulfilling the aspiration that they have so readily endorsed.
On the whole, the document is welcome, not least because it acknowledges the parlous state of sport in schools and the need to reverse the decline in participation by young people in competitive team sports. It might be argued that three years was a long time to wait for the Government's first major policy initiative on sport. My greatest criticism is that, during those three years, the Government's education policies have undermined sports provision through an over-prescriptive curriculum. We shall reverse the decline in school sports only when that over-prescriptive approach is abandoned. Further, the decline will be reversed only when every child, and not only those thought to be gifted, is allowed the chance to take part in a range of sports with sufficient frequency and encouragement. In that way, their talents might develop, if only to allow them to see sport as an important part of their future life. In that respect, I share the Minister's aspiration.
3.54 pm
Mr. Bob Russell: To continue the final few comments of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and to maintain the united sport front, the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome "A Sporting Future for All". To emphasise the point, I say that sport really matters.
The Government deserves a gold medal for all their hype on the issue. However, the reality is that our young children—at least 75 per cent. of them, according to the

133WH
Government—are being cheated when it comes to sport and physical recreation in schools. We welcome the general thrust and the strategy set out in "A Sporting Future for All", provided this is the first, and not the only, step. The promises will become just another broken pledge if there is not rapid progress toward implementation with further boosts to sport to follow.
Young people today are less fit than their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents were. A study for Sport England, published earlier this year, confirmed that a generation of unfit children is emerging from our schools following the decline in PE lessons, which is the result of the drive to raise standards in literacy and mathematics. Worse, millions of youngsters spend far more time watching television or playing computer games than taking part in any form of exercise. A medical time bomb is ticking away under the nation.
Sport England's chairman, Trevor Brooking—the much respected former England footballer—has been quoted as saying that children leaving school now are
technically the worst generation I have ever seen.
He added:
The fundamental problem is that children are not being taught the basic techniques of how to hold a bat or racquet, or how to kick a ball.
Sport is not encouraged in schools; it is discouraged. The overemphasis on academic achievement at all costs—placing less importance on everything else, so that pupils can, it is hoped, achieve slightly higher pass marks, thus improving their school's place in the league tables for examination results—is damaging our young people. Their present and long-term health, their fulfilment in many other spheres and their quality of life are being harmed. Involvement in the uniformed movements and other youth groups and participation in the full range of the arts and sports are harmed by the unhealthy obsession with academic studies. The message going out to young people is that those who are less academically gifted are of less worth to society. That attitude must be changed. Life is made up of more than the classroom and spending long hours studying at home.
Schools are failing in the basic requirement—a Government target—that pupils should participate in a minimum of two hours of physical education a week. In a parliamentary answer on 7 March in column 576W, it was admitted that the two-hour minimum is not being achieved in three of four age groups and was only just achieved in the fourth age group. Those figures were based on inspections by the Office for Standards in Education in 1998. We fear that the situation has worsened rather than improved since then. At key stage 1—pupils aged five to seven—the average time spent on physical education was I hour 20 minutes a week. At key stage 2—ages seven to 11—it was 1 hour 35 minutes. At key stage 3—ages 11 to 14—the minimum two hours was achieved. At key stage 4—ages 14 to 16—it had fallen to just 1 hour 15 minutes. Those figures confirm my observation that the Government's education policies are forcing schools to relegate sport and recreation from the timetable. Would the Minister like to guess how many sports teachers will be awarded performance-related pay?
This Government, like previous Governments, do not rate sport highly. They seek to bask in the glory of sporting triumphs when they occur, but the reality is
134WH
that, as a nation, we do not do anything like enough to encourage sport and physical recreation. I exempt the Minister for Sport from my criticisms. I have total confidence in her. I know that she would like to do more to give sport the priority and importance that it deserves. However, sport will be taken seriously only when it has a department of its own with its own—greater—resources, providing joined-up government across the various Departments. Education and Employment, Environment, Transport and the Regions, Health and the Home Office are four obvious ones. What role does the Minister feel that sport offers the social exclusion unit and vice versa?
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman said that a ministry of sport should have more resources; would he care to put a figure on that?
Mr. Russell: That is a good question. The figure is not available, but the hon. Member for Ryedale provided a shopping list of various organisations whence that came. If we are to have joined-up government, we must work out the cost to the public purse of criminal damage, unhealthy children and so on. Such matters cannot be put into compartments. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) may want to do that, but joined-up government means more than just putting a price on something.
Today's debate is on probably the quietest parliamentary Thursday of the year, and in the training room of Westminster Hall instead of the main stadium of the House, which epitomises the Government's attitude to sport. "A Sporting Future for All" was launched on 5 April, not in the House, but in a publicity stunt in Haringey, with two Secretaries of State squabbling over who should take the credit. When reference to that discourtesy was made in the House, Madam Speaker deplored what had occurred, but neither the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport nor the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was present for the admonition. It fell to the Minister for Sport, who had been frozen out of the launch that morning, to take the rap and to apologise because the document had not been presented to the House first.
It had all been different a few hours earlier. On the morning of 5 April, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued a press release headed "Smith and Hoey launch a sporting future for all". It contained a two-paragraph quote from the Minister for Sport. That release was quickly pulled and a new one was issued jointly by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Employment. The opening words stated:
David Blunkett and Chris Smith today launched a radical boost in access to school sport.
The name of the Minister for Sport had been removed from that second press release, as had her comments. Her words had been replaced with three paragraphs of quotes from the Secretary of State for Education. That sums up the Government's real attitude towards sport—even the Minister for Sport was sidelined when they launched their sports strategy.
"A Sporting Future for All" includes an introduction by the Prime Minister:

135WH
For all of us who take up sport, a good start in the early years is important…It is in school where most of us get our first chance to try sport. It is here that children discover their talent and their potential. They need the chance to try a variety of sports to see which they enjoy most. They need high quality teaching of basic skills.
I am sure that we all endorse those fine words from the Prime Minister, but what will the Secretary of State for Education and Employment do to make them reality? The evidence is that our schools, because of Government policies, are failing our children in sport and physical education. No amount of fine words and glossy pamphlets can hide that stark reality.
"A Sporting Future for All" includes a section headed "The Vision" and the chapter "Sport in Education" has my total support, but will the Government deliver what they state? The strategy statement, "Increasing Participation by Young People", states:
Physical education and sport are a fundamental part of the education of all young people.
No one would argue with that, or with the further comment that
in too many schools physical education and sport have declined.
But the policies of successive Governments have caused that; schools did not choose to bring that about.
The pledge of financial support for sport in schools is welcome, but it must be put in context because it is not a lot when spread across the country. Although 110 specialist sports colleges by 2003 is better than nothing, there are 3,560 state secondary schools in England; £150 million for primary schools is also better than nothing, but there are 18,234 such schools in England. The sum is less than one fifth of that spent on the millennium dome—talking of which, would the Minister care to comment on the proposal to the dome legacy competition that its long-term use should be as a sports dome featuring 50 sports, making it the largest concentration of sports ever assembled under one roof anywhere in the world? The £240 million support for schools to provide out-of-school-hours activities is also welcome, but the Minister knows that that is too little for the country as a whole. How many youngsters aged 14 and over will have time to make use of them when they are burdened with so much studying at home?
Perhaps the Minister will draw to the attention of all the Education Ministers paragraph 2.4 on page 8, which states:
These plans will allow a new start for sport in schools. We know that excellent physical education and school sport are a key part of an effective school. Sporting achievement and academic standards go hand in hand.
Furthermore, the opening sentence of paragraph 7.1 on page 29 states:
Physical education is an essential part of a broad and balanced curriculum.
If the Government are serious about wanting to reverse the decline of physical education and sport in schools, and improve the quality of provision for all young people, they must provide the resources to match the warm words. They must also let Education Ministers proclaim time and again that sporting achievements and academic standards go hand in hand. In that way,
136WH
perhaps educationists at all levels will get the message. Up to now, I have concentrated on sport in schools, because unless we quickly reverse the trends of recent years, the future for UK sport will be even more bleak than it is.
Football has never had as much money as it has now. However, the English professional game is arguably worse off than ever before, and our long-term future on the international scene is threatened. Huge sums are concentrated among a few clubs, but instead of the money being used for the wider benefit of the sport at all levels, it is going into the grotesque salaries of a relatively small number of overrated, over-priced and overpaid professionals, who, with their parasite agents, are sucking vast sums of money out of the game.
The Government should be considering financial strategies to redistribute the wealth in football so that it benefits the many and not the few. I invite the Minister to discuss this matter with her Treasury colleagues. What I propose would not involve additional public expenditure. Grass-roots football—junior clubs and youth teams at all levels—would have their fortunes and facilities transformed by a redistribution of the money that is sloshing around the highest reaches of the professional game before being grabbed by a greedy minority.
The smaller professional and semi-professional clubs which do so much to promote football in all parts of the country would also benefit. To put this into perspective, Manchester United's annual wage bill is the equivalent of the cost of building several new stadiums for second and third division clubs—I declare an interest in relation to my home club, Colchester United—as well as those in the feeder leagues.
A few days ago, I received a letter from the chairman of Yeovil Town football club, which plays in the Football Conference, the feeder league to the Nationwide Football League. The total attendance at all Conference matches this season will be at a record level for the third year running. Many such small-town clubs have an active programme to develop their role and activities in the community. However, Conference clubs are ineligible for grant aid from the Football Association to run official football academies for young players in their towns, although assistance can be given to the bigger clubs. The Government must sort out such unfairness, as it is yet another example of how the football authorities allow the big clubs to dictate what happens in our main national sport.
Mr. Greenway: May I, as president of York City football club, bring some good news to the hon. Gentleman? A working party consisting of three third division chairmen has been set up, headed by the chairman of York City, Douglas Craig. It will examine how support for the Conference can be improved, and how more clubs in the Conference can be promoted to the Football League. One never knows—Yeovil Town might make it.
Mr. Russell: I am most grateful for that intervention. An increased number of clubs entering the Football League from the Conference would also mean an increase in the number going out. York City should be very wary of that.

137WH
Although the Minister has referred to some money from the premiership being distributed to lower levels, the amount is minute. It could be conscience money. It has, in a way, taken our eye off the ball, because 5 per cent. of premier division money is not a vast sum, when we think of all the money that is floating around.
If the strategies and recommendations of "A Sporting Future for All" are implemented, and provided that sufficient financial resources and quality coaching are made available, we can perhaps look forward to a better future for the nation's sport, not only in terms of national success, but at all levels. We should encourage participation by all, not just by those who have the potential to be the elite performers in their sport, and not just in the major sports, such as football, rugby, cricket, hockey, tennis, swimming, and athletics, but in the so-called minority sports.
The current British sabre champion is a young man from my constituency. The Minister may recall receiving earlier this year a letter from that young man's father. His story illustrates, on one hand, the aspirations set out in "A Sporting Future for All" and, on the other, the stark reality for our talented young people, who are cheated of the chance to realise their full potential. My constituent, Robin Knight, now aged 20, joined Colchester fencing club at the age of 11, after attending an introductory session at his school. His considerable talent was quickly recognised. Fencing is a minority sport in this country, but it is big in other parts of Europe. Last year, it cost Mr. Knight—or, more precisely, his parents—almost £10,000 to cover the cost of his equipment, training fees and travel and hotel costs for major events. For the world championships in Korea, he received £500 from the national sports organisation, of which £474 went to pay his air fare. He had to buy his track suit, for which the balance of £26 was inadequate.
The Government must provide more support, if the best of our young people are to succeed on the national stage. Had it not been for his parents, it is unlikely that Mr. Knight would have been able to compete for his country. If there were a proper level of support, his international prospects would be improved immensely. Incidentally, I would also welcome further support for our talented sportsmen and sportswomen from British industry. At the recent sabre international tournament in London, the Spanish team was sponsored by Wilkinson Sword Ltd. The same company has rejected a request that it sponsor Robin Knight, the British champion. That attitude is regrettable.
Support from large and small companies is appreciated, but it should be regarded as top-up, rather than core funding. I pay tribute to Lancaster garages, one of many sponsoring companies, which is helping the training of a gifted young athlete from my constituency, Sarah Claxton, who, many believe, has the potential to become an Olympic medallist in four years' time. The Minister should consider what help can be given to Miss Claxton and others. I would also welcome some comment from the Minister on the extraordinary fact that the British Olympic Association is one of only two national Olympic committees that do not receive public money. The Government should take measures to ensure that our sportsmen and sportswomen compete on a level playing field.
138WH
Nothing should take away from the importance of the voluntary contribution that so many people make to sport in this country. They are the backroom men and women, without whose dedication our sport would be even more impoverished. The Central Council of Physical Recreation described volunteers as
"the foundations of British sport".
That is true, and one small way to recognise it would be for the Government to exempt volunteers from having to pay for the criminal record checks that will soon be introduced. I also endorse the CCPR's proposal that voluntary sports clubs should be eligible for mandatory rate relief. I have been told that the future of Brighton and Hove cricket club has been put in jeopardy because of a demand for £5,594 in business rates. It would not be too costly for the Government to grant rate relief to sports clubs throughout the country, but it would be more than repaid in what those clubs could do to promote sports, if they were no longer faced with a battle for survival.
The Minister will, I hope, be pleased to hear that my comments on the fiasco of the Wembley stadium development will be brief. She knows that when I got a question about it on to the Order Paper, it was mysteriously shunted off to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, even though it dealt with Wembley stadium and the Wembley task force. Methinks, in the light of what the hon. Member for Ryedale said, that there was a conspiracy of some sort to prevent it from being raised in the House. I am astonished at the Government's vandalism, allowing the demolition of arguably the most famous stadium in the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that Ministers are adopting an unacceptable attitude, because that would not be correct.
Mr. Russell: If any offence was caused by my remarks, I withdraw them. The Minister and I have corresponded on and discussed these matters, and my comment was made in jest.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, Hansard has no way of indicating that a comment was made in jest. We might suggest that it introduce a suitable symbol, but I hate to think where such a precedent would end.
Mr. Russell: I am not suggesting anything untoward, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Returning to the demolition of Wembley stadium, I am astonished that the Government should be such vandals, allowing the demolition, as I said, of arguably the most famous stadium in the world. Historians will look back in amazement at the destruction of this important 20th-century building, which was the venue for England's most important sporting triumph—winning the football world cup in 1966—and the 1948 Olympic games. It is to be replaced by an ugly stadium in which only 40 major sporting events a year will be allowed, and which will still be served by a grossly inadequate road and rail system. What a waste of money. The total cost of the project approaches that of

139WH
the dome. Perhaps some will think that the stadium is better value for money, but sports men and women in general may think that money would have been better spent on a different site, at a lower cost, leaving funds for other sports developments.
The Government rightly oppose in principle the sale of school playing fields, although reality has not matched the rhetoric. Of the scores of applications received, only a handful has been rejected. The Minister will agree that, on some occasions, the disposal of surplus space can generate income for all-weather pitches or sports halls, which constitute better overall neighbourhood sports provision. However, the sale of playing fields by companies and public bodies poses more of a threat.
In my constituency, the Royal London Mutual Insurance Society plans to sell its playing fields, which include four football pitches, for commercial development. The Government, through the Ministry of Defence and the national health service, also eagerly hope to sell sports fields. I hope that they will not operate double standards in respect of pitches that they own. Nor should planning guidelines relating to brown field and green field developments be ignored.
Overall, "A Sporting Future for All", which promises much, is to be welcomed. Delivery will be eagerly anticipated, and further progress and improvements sought. I know that the Minister wishes to achieve sport for all, and I wish her every success in her endeavours. In that regard, she can count on constructive support from Liberal Democrats.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should point out that a number of Members want to contribute to the debate. I am not seeking to restrain hon. Members, but they should bear in mind that a degree of discipline will enable those who wish to speak to do so before the afternoon is over.
4.18 pm
Dr. Howard Stoate: I shall endeavour to be reasonably brief.
As one of a small but select band of hon. Members who recently participated in the London marathon, I feel qualified to contribute to this afternoon's debate. I am the fastest marathon runner among current hon. Members, but before I am accused of boasting, I should point out that I fall a long way short of the record holder, Matthew Parris, who was considerably faster. I should like to place on record my thanks to hon. Members for their generous sponsorship, which helped me to raise more than £2,500 for Mencap.
As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall put a slight medical spin on the debate. A doctor might define sport as a way of making exercise purposeful and enjoyable, and which encourages people to keep it up. The nation's broom cupboards must be full of many thousands of exercise bikes and rowing machines, bought in good faith but abandoned due to inertia and boredom of a solitary activity. Therefore, one great advantage of sport is that it is often a communal activity. People may also feel that, if they do not turn up
140WH
to play regularly, they are letting their colleagues down. That camaraderie is what makes sport different from routine exercise, which can be boring.
Why is exercise so important? Most people are preoccupied with living for as long as possible, and in that respect the evidence about exercise is stark. People who take regular exercise gain significantly, in terms of their chances of staying alive, over those who do not do so. The figures are astonishing. People who exercise commonly suffer only half the rate of heart disease and stroke that is suffered by those who exercise very little or not at all. People double their chances of dying early by not taking regular exercise—it is as simple as that.
Unfortunately, Britain does not fare well in the incidence of heart disease and stroke—we are very near the bottom of the European Union league table. In France, there are 36 deaths per 100,000 a year from circulatory disease among people under the age of 65. Britain has 70 deaths per 100,000 among people in the same age group. We have twice the rate of heart disease in France. Proof that exercise—of which sport is a major form—can improve matters should alone spur people to continue.
Unfortunately, some people are significantly more at risk than others. Women do not take part in sport as much as men, and are at greater risk of having a stroke. Thus, they not only find it more difficult to take part in sporting activities, but are more at risk from not doing so. It is a double whammy. People from south Asia have a significantly higher risk of heart disease than people from other ethnic groups.
Britain has a significant health problem, and sport is part of the solution. We therefore need a strategy to increase sporting participation among people in general, as well as targeting it at specific groups. "A Sporting Future for All" is important because it sets out such a strategy. However, there are significant barriers to achieving some of the document's aims—for example, the recommended level of activity.
A physician would say that 20 to 30 minutes of good quality exercise four or five times a week should keep the average person in reasonably good shape. The problem is that people's life styles often make that difficult to achieve. Working hours in Britain—48 hours a week on average—are among the longest in Europe. Balancing the competing demands of work, family and other activities deters many people from regularly taking part in sport. For the socially excluded, access is denied not only by lack of time, but by lack of opportunity. Sporting facilities can be financially and geographically well beyond their reach.
Good habits must be promoted early on in life; it is important to encourage people to take part in regular sport from the earliest possible age. That is why I am pleased that the Government have, to a large extent, focused their resources on primary schools. If primary school children begin to exercise regularly, it is much more likely that they will continue to do so throughout their lives. As the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) said, the current generation of children is far less fit than previous generations. That is partly due to the fact that some schools do not take sport sufficiently seriously. I am pleased that the document proposes a framework for remedying that.

141WH
Unfortunately, however, there is more to the matter. In today's society, children are far more likely, when they come in from school, to play on the computer or watch television than to socialise with their colleagues and friends or engage in sporting activities. My children regularly take part in sport, but I have to remind them to turn off the computer or television and go out to play football or go to the park with their bikes. It is a struggle, because society has a couch-potato mentality. When people get in from school or work, they tend to slouch in front of the television, and it is difficult to get them to take sport more seriously.
As a doctor, I assure hon. Members that sport improves not only physical but mental fitness. People who say to me in my medical capacity, "I feel far too tired to exercise", have got things the wrong way round. The more that one exercises, the less tired one feels. If, when I get home after a difficult day's debating in the House, I go for a 10-mile run, I return from it feeling absolutely marvellous. It gives me an enormous boost. [Laughter.] I do not know whether Hansard will pick up those nuances.
People talk about the endorphin rush, which involves natural morphine-like substances that everyone has in their brain—such substances are entirely legal and the police cannot touch people for using them. They give one precisely the same buzz—allegedly—as recreational drugs, but with far fewer health risks and no risk of being caught and prosecuted. Many scientific studies have documented the fact that mental well-being after a heavy bout of exercise is not to be sniffed at. [Laughter.] I use that word advisedly.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We should treat this subject with great seriousness.
Dr. Stoate: I do not wish to be flippant—this is a serious issue, and I do not want to give the impression that I do not take it extremely seriously.
Medically speaking, there is nothing better than regular exercise to keep one's body and mind in trim, and sport is an extremely good way of doing that. We have heard much this afternoon about the Government's approach, and I am pleased that the document sets out a detailed strategy. That will ensure that the Government play their part in helping schools and communities to develop sporting activities. The focus may largely be on primary schools, but in my constituency, Dart ford grammar school—a secondary school—is the host of the Beckett centre, which is a sporting facility that is open to the entire community. The school uses the facility during the day, and the community makes great use of it at evenings and weekends. There are many ways in which schools can participate to ensure that everyone makes the best use of such facilities.
The Government are to set up 110 specialist sports colleges by 2003. I am slightly disappointed that one school in my area was unable to become one. After an unfavourable report by the Office for Standards in Education, Dartford west boys' school intended to become a sports college, but the local education authority did not want to pursue that approach and chose instead to close the school. There was little that the Government could do, and, unfortunately, the
142WH
school will close in due course. However, there are opportunities for schools elsewhere—the Government are committed to setting up a significant number of sports colleges, and they will have a significant impact.
Various local initiatives are being pursued in my constituency. For example, there are significant efforts to promote increased involvement in sport by women. I am the president of a cycling club in Dartford Team Darenth, which is trying to increase the number of girls and young women who cycle. Women have not taken up cycling as a sport to the same extent as men, but we are considering using trained women cycling instructors to help to encourage young women to do so, which should make a significant difference.
Another initiative seeks to encourage young disabled people in my constituency to get into sport. That should ensure that disabled people, whatever their disability, have the same opportunities as everyone else to take part in sport.
My overarching theme is that, however unfit people may feel—however unable they believe they are to take part in sport—there is always a sport that they could do. There is no such thing as someone who is maximally fit; it is always possible for people to become fitter. People who are supremely fit can get fitter, and those who are supremely unfit can always find ways to become fitter. People may feel that they are so unfit that it would be dangerous for them to exercise or take part in sport, but that is not right. With proper training and instruction, people can always become fitter, which will improve their quality of life.
I do not treat this debate flippantly; it is of an extremely important matter. Anything that encourages sport for all will be of great benefit to all, whatever their ability or background.
4.28 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: I should like to make four brief and somewhat parochial points. I agree with much of what has been said, and I do not want to repeat points that have already been made. We appear to have reached a significant degree of agreement.
First, there is a perception that because rural areas are covered by greenfield or brownfield areas, local people have ready access to open areas for recreation and sport, but that is not so. Many such fields are commercial concerns. Young people in rural areas often do not have the access to playing fields that people assume. Even when relatively small and poor parish councils can get a few coppers together to buy a bit of ground, the bureaucracy and safety issues involved prove far too great a problem. I hope that, in moves to deal with playing fields and access for everyone, it will be recognised that rural areas sometimes need additional support because of the costs of providing playing fields.
Secondly, I think that we all agree that we have lost far too many playing fields. I hope that the Minister can find a means, through discussion with colleagues in other Departments, of establishing a direct presumption against development, because development causes some of the sales—although that is not to say that there will always be a case for such presumption. Local authorities sell their playing fields because that provides them with a contribution. Development can take place on them, so

143WH
they acquire a development value. Participation in sport that could be retained is lost because land with development value is sold.
Thirdly, as regards voluntary clubs, I hope that the proposals will go right down to the grass roots. We have heard some big figures. The football club in my home town has nine teams; it gets sponsorship from local business for its shirts, and we are all enjoined to sponsor the match ball and everything else. However, the poor young people who go along have to provide £2.50 each week to pay the local authority to use the ground. Everyone else seems to be putting in, but parents with two children who want to go along have to find £5 a week—week in, week out—which is a lot. It is good to have rate relief on ground fees for sports clubs, but there should be some other sort of relief so that young people, in particular, can use playing fields without having to stump up out of their pocket money. That is grass roots stuff.
Fourthly, we all recognise the importance of school sport. The difficulty in rural areas—as those of us who have tried to promote after-school sport know—is that most children use transport, such as school buses. The bus goes at quarter-past or half-past 3, but anyone who wants to stay on after school will not be ready to leave until quarter to 5 or 5 o'clock, when the bus has gone. There is also the problem of parents coming for their children. The school where I was the chairman of the board of governors tried to devise a system whereby we had an early bus and a late bus. However, the cost of the service relative to our budget made it prohibitive, even though many children wanted to avail themselves of it.
There is a lurking problem in school sport; such problems sometimes build up because they have become excuses for doing nothing. The problem relates to safety. Schools are concerned about becoming the subject of litigation if a child breaks his leg or neck or suffers some other major injury. They therefore face the additional cost of providing safer equipment.
The other day, I discovered that providing cricket helmets for children to participate in the sport would cost £30 or £40 a child. Of course, if children do not have a helmet and have an accident, the school will be liable to significant litigation. That is a growing problem. Indeed, there are similar developments in other areas of society, where people are only too keen to pick up the telephone to ring the nearest solicitor who happens to advertise on the back of a bus to inquire whether the solicitor might be keen to pursue the case of someone who is injured.
A more nationally based policy is needed to enable schools to protect themselves, so that sport, which can be accidentally dangerous, can be continued as safely as possible but with a recognition that accidents can happen. There is no need for hugely expensive insurance premiums or massive budgets for possibly unnecessary safety equipment. Those are practical issues at the smaller, school end.
I hope that all the report's aims and objectives are achieved as quickly as possible. There are only a few hon. Members present, yet probably the one thing that most constituents talk about during the week is sport. They are not really interested in the euro, or other such
144WH
things. They and their children talk about and watch sport. It is something in which both men and women and boys and girls participate and talk about far more often than we realise.
4.35 pm
Mr. Alan Keen: I am grateful not to have been called immediately after my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) because, after his frequent mention of heart attacks and the speed of his delivery, I was left exhausted, despite the fact that I far exceed his recommendations on weekly exercise. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his three colleagues who completed the London marathon more quickly than I dare dream about. I know that because they cost me at least four weeks' pocket money in sponsorship.
I did not intend to mention politics, even on this election day, but I was inspired by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). I was reminded a couple of weeks ago about this issue because I was flattered to find that Brentford football club, Queen's Park Rangers and Wasps were competing for the development of the Feltham marina site adjacent to Feltham station in my constituency. A 35,000-seater football stadium and an ice rink are to be built there. I was reminded—not by a Liberal Democrat—that a long time ago the Liberal Democrats in Richmond demolished the ice rink. I am not saying that they let people down after promising to rebuild it, but 25 years is a long time. It looks as though we are to have another rink in Feltham. Perhaps the people who are still waiting for the Richmond rink to be rebuilt will travel to Feltham; the journey from Richmond takes only eight minutes. I apologise for the politics.
I spoke to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport before the debate began and was delighted to be told that she would speak for half an hour, a much shorter time than she took when she was a Back Bencher speaking about sport. I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on her appointment—this is the first time since she became Minister for Sport that I have spoken in a sports debate—but on the sports strategy, of which I am proud, despite the criticisms which can be made, one of which I have pointed out and to which I will return in a while. We should pay tribute also to the late Denis Howell and to my hon. Friends the Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who have contributed greatly to the development of sports policy over the years.
"Sport for All"—with "A Sporting Future for All"—has included children, young people and older people, and those with disabilities. One thing that we do wrong is define sport too narrowly. I should like other pastimes to be brought into the arena of sport. We want to motivate everyone to become involved in activities that we may not now classify as sports but that can be developed as such if there is co-ordination among sporting bodies. In that way, we can widen the term "sport", instead of defining it too narrowly.
I apologise for repeating something that I mentioned in a previous sports debate. I was reminded of it by Trevor Brooking, who spoke at a meeting that I organised in Hounslow last week. He said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam) had taken him to an area where sport was

145WH
used as part of the ammunition to regenerate a town that had been brought completely to its knees. Buses could not go through it because of vandalism and threats of violence. I was brought up in that town, and I know it well. Sport plays quite a part there. Middlesbrough football club has a centre in the town, where Frank Spraggon and Jim Platt, two ex-internationals, give coaching.
Sport has helped to bring the town back to what it was when I was a kid; as a child and a young man I spent most of my spare time playing all kinds of sports, all provided by the local authority. In the summer, eight of us played tennis from 9 o'clock in the morning. We paid for half an hour, and, knowing that no one else would come and that we did not have much money, the park attendant let us play on for six hours. We then went and played bowls; if young people were allowed on a bowling green nowadays, people would have their hearts in their mouths, but in those days we looked after everything. That is what sport can do.
We must ensure that the links between schools and clubs are maintained. As hon. Members have said, sport gives young people a feeling of belonging and a sense of ownership. The fact that they are participating and have something of value in their lives does so much to promote that feeling of belonging. If we can get young people to be involved in sport, they can be helped to improve their performance. In my constituency, people play sport at all sorts of levels, from my level, for example, to that of Mohammed Farrah, a fantastically promising distance runner, now aged 16, who looks like being an Olympic champion in four years or so. It does not matter what level people are at—if they are proud of what they do and gain satisfaction from what they achieve, even if it is only self-satisfaction, it will deter them from taking recreational drugs, which often lead to their taking harder drugs and damage people's lives. Another incentive for encouraging people to take part in sport is that it promotes a healthier life style, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said. Think of the consequences for the national health service in the future if the population is healthier.
It is important to establish and strengthen the links between school sport, which we will improve in the next two or three years, and clubs; we must encourage young people to carry on participating in sport when they leave school. We must not lose those kids; I am not talking about compulsion—we do not want to force people to take part—but we do want to give them the opportunity to go on to clubs, and the sports co-ordinators will help them to do so.
My criticism of the strategy is that it makes only sparse reference to veterans' sport. The link between clubs and old-age pensioners needs to be continued; I have never entered for a marathon, but in the past two years I have started doing half-marathons, and managed to get to the end without stopping. That proves that sport can continue when people are older. There would be an even bigger improvement in the nation's health if we could encourage people to participate in sport later in life. My hon. Friend the Minister opened the veterans' world athletics championships at Gateshead last year and they were thrilled by what she said.
It is difficult for people to play sport, especially team sports, when they leave school. I broke the link and did not play active team sports for 20 or 25 years, until I came
146WH
to this place in 1992 and, finding that it was so much like the public schools that I had read about at school, I started playing team games again. Let me put in a plug for the parliamentary football team which is playing a charity game next Monday at the Stadium of Light against the north-east press, including part of the old Sunderland cup-winning side of 1973. That shows that the ability to play sport can extend well into the advanced years.
Our parliamentary football team also played in an international tournament in Portugal last summer. To our credit, we came fourth, missing second place only on penalties. As one who called for the resignation of the previous England manager for not practising penalties, I must point out that we were beaten by the Italians in a penalty shoot-out. Italy scored eight consecutive penalties and we scored seven—twice as many as the England side has ever achieved. I therefore feel justified about my comments, as coach, when I criticised the previous England manager. If the present England manager would like to include any of our top players in his squad, he could bring us on 30 seconds from the end of a draw to take all the penalties.
Mr. Greenway: Name them.
Mr. Keen: I could name them, all right.
My hon. Friend the Minister spoke about veterans' athletics, which shows what can be achieved. These people competed in athletics at a high level to begin with, but greatly extended their competition years. I spent three or four days there and was most impressed with an Englishman who broke the world 200 m record for over 45-year-olds. I forget his exact time, but the professionals who organised the games at the Gateshead stadium were most impressed. The man was 47 and was asked about his lifetime's best. He was expected to say that he achieved a faster time 20 years earlier, but he said, "That was it." He ran his best ever race at the age of 47, which shows how people can carry on over the years and keep up a healthy life style.
As a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which investigated the future of the Wembley stadium complex, I bet that, if we successfully bid for the 2012 Olympics, they will take place on a concrete platform in the present stadium, not at Pickett's Lock. The present Sports Minister may even be Prime Minister by then, but whoever is, he will rubber-stamp that decision.
Finally, I offer my best wishes to the British Olympic Association. I know all about the wonderful preparation that it made in Queensland for the Olympics. All the administrators and athletes, who will travel there from all over the world, should also be thanked.
4.48 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I should declare an interest as a supporter of Harrow borough football club, which is in the Ryman premier league. I am sponsoring its final home match of the season on Saturday. On each of the two occasions that I have sponsored the team in the past, they have scored five

147WH
goals. They need one point to be sure of staying in the Ryman premier league. I hope that they will score five goals again on Saturday to ensure their survival.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This has been an interesting and instructive debate, but seldom has so much free advertisement been offered to so many sporting venues.
Mr. Thomas: I am also a member of the London Welsh rugby football club whose recent application to join the Welsh-Scottish league will, I hope, be successful.
Sport is a crucial element of the social cement that binds our communities, as has already been said. As my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) stressed in their contributions, it is also crucial to the physical and mental well-being of our citizens. The links between the lack of participation in sport and the greater propensity to commit crime or play truant are well known and well documented.
The economic significance of sport is also profound, from the bed and breakfast on the Pembrokeshire coast for the sea kayaking enthusiast to the multi-million pound enterprise that is Manchester United. That issue has been discussed somewhat less, although the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) touched on it. Ladbroke Racing Ltd. is based in my constituency and has started a new telephone-betting service within the past 12 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston talked about where the 2012 Olympic games might be, and I invite him to put some money down and take advantage of the service that my constituents provide through Ladbroke Racing Ltd.
As I understand it, consumers spend £12 billion on sport, and the industry directly provides 420,000 jobs. Clearly, the Department of Trade and Industry can also play a crucial role in a strategy for sport to foster the sports industry. I hope that the relationship that already exists, as I understand it, between the sports industry, the DTI and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will continue to grow.
I warmly welcome the excellent document "A Sporting Future for All", and my hon. Friend the Minister deserves considerable praise for producing it. The twin-track vision of increasing participation for all in sport and driving up success rates for British athletes is absolutely right. As hon. Members have said, particularly focused efforts need to be directed at continuing to increase the participation of women and ethnic minorities.
I also strongly support the moves to modernise the administration and support structures for sports, in particular for our Olympic medallists. It is worth highlighting the fact that we came ninth in the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Five Olympic Games on, at Atlanta in 1996, we plummeted to 36th place. The decline in the colour of medals won has been even greater: we won one gold medal in 1996, compared with five at Barcelona four years earlier. We won 34 medals in all at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, 20 at Barcelona four years later and went down to 15 at Atlanta in 1996. The drive to raise the level of support that we offer to our most talented athletes is crucial.
148WH
Interest in sport begins in the main—although not exclusively—when we are young. Sport England's survey on young people and sport, which my hon. Friends have highlighted, offers a number of positive news stories. Both boys and girls are increasingly likely to play team sports. Between 1994 and 1999, the proportion of boys taking part frequently rose from 72 to 75 per cent. Among girls, the proportion went up from 34 to 42 per cent. The proportion of children taking part in after-school sport rose from 74 to 79 per cent. That shows that there have been some successes over the past five years in relation to sport in schools and among young people.
However, areas of concern remain, as my hon. Friends have said. I want to highlight the fact—again from the Sport England survey—that only 17 per cent. of primary schools have access to a multi-purpose sports hall. I understand that the figure for secondary schools is four times higher, although that in turn means that at least 30 per cent. of secondary schools are without access to a multi-purpose sports hall.
We should not be complacent about the quality of the multi-purpose halls that we have. Whitmore high school in my constituency has particular problems getting a range of children into the hall, because it is not big enough. In that context, the £150 million investment in the worst parts of school sports facilities that was announced when the document was released is enormously welcome, as is Sport England's commitment that 20 per cent. of lottery funds will be made available to youth sports.
As other hon. Members have said, the survey also highlighted the decline in the number of children receiving physical education each week in our schools. However, it is worth pointing out that the proportion spending more time on average in PE lessons has more than trebled: in 1994, 5 per cent. of pupils received between 30 and 59 minutes of PE a week, and that figure has now risen to 18 per cent. The story is not all doom and gloom. Falls in the amount of time spent in PE lessons were particularly pronounced in primary schools, which is of concern.
In a written answer on 9 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Red ditch (Jacqui Smith) stated:
Ofsted's 1999 review of primary schools in England found that overall progress in PE is satisfactory or better in 97 per cent. of schools… We have set an aspiration that all schools should provide two hours of curricular or extra-curricular activities a week.—[Official Report, 9 March 2000: Vol. 345, c. 792W.]
That is welcome, but we need to keep the matter under close review to see whether we are succeeding in increasing PE provision for children at primary school.
I would prefer the compulsory option, but the Government was right to focus on driving up levels of literacy and numeracy, to which the previous Government paid insufficient attention. I notice that Sport England give a kite mark to schools that have good access to sport. Perhaps Ofsted or Sport England should start to indicate those primary schools that do not give proper access to sport. Sport England has also highlighted the urgency of addressing the issues. It says that despite the attractions and advantages of PE and school sport, there is increasing evidence that many young people have worryingly low levels of fitness.

149WH
We need to get the amount of time spent on PE right. It is also crucial to get the PE training for teacher's right. As little as six hours training and professional development is on occasion devoted to physical education in initial teacher training and a substantial increase is needed. I should also like to suggest bursaries for those undertaking PE teacher training courses so that we can encourage the best applicants for PE education. We should do more to celebrate the successful, hard working and enthusiastic PE staff on whom we rely.
I remember Bob Longman from my own days at Hatch End high school in my constituency. He drove us to complete the cross-country circuits that he had devised around our school, which left me with a great love of running. He is still imparting that enthusiasm to many other young people at Hatch End high school. Perhaps we could encourage that further through the teachers' Oscars that Lord Puttnam has successfully developed.
We have done excellent work to prevent the compulsory sale of playing fields. The idea of the audit for sporting facilities is enormously welcome. Harrow council's audit highlighted the south Harrow area in my constituency as defective in sports provision, particularly football. When money is allocated from Sport England or from central Government expenditure, we should focus not just on boroughs with high levels of deprivation, but on areas that have pockets of deprivation. In particular, Harrow's athletics facility needs to be upgraded. I hope that Harrow athletics club, which uses the Bannister playing fields in Hatch End, will shortly receive funding for modernisation.
I hope that pressure will be put on the Rugby Football Union and UK Athletics, through meetings with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to ensure that the 5 per cent. revenue from television resources is allocated soon—if it has not been already—to grass-roots sport. In my constituency, that might help Pinner and Grammarians rugby club and Old Gaytonians rugby club to raise their aspirations further.
The hub and spoke model for developing voluntary club structures is excellent. Harrow Borough football club, which I mentioned earlier, is enthusiastically developing a support scheme with Ruislip Rangers, so that teams for five to 17-year-olds, leading to the adult team, can be based at Harrow Borough. Lottery sports funding for an artificial turf pitch would be particularly useful on that site, and would further that aim.
I throw out to my hon. Friend the Minister the suggestion that, in addition to an audit of sports facilities, there must also be an audit of the number of grass-roots coaching staff. Increased resources could be allocated to fund trained professionals to coach young people.
I want to highlight the problem facing canoeists in Britain. About 11,000 miles of upland river and tranquil lowland river would be navigable if access agreements were in place. Sadly, canoeists have agreements for just 2.8 per cent. of those rivers, so the challenge of canoeing on upland rivers, which are often fast and exciting, and can offer rough white-water conditions, is frequently denied.
150WH
There has not been a great deal of politics in the debate, but it was a shame that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) ducked his party's record on sport expenditure, which dropped in real terms in the last four budgets of the Tory Government. It was 3.2 per cent. in 1994–95, 1 per cent. in 1995–96, 6.7 per cent. in 1996–97 and 6.5 per cent. in 1997–98.
We should examine the tax relief and charitable status of voluntary clubs and whether there is anything else that we can do. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the idea that we should bring the Olympics to London, not only because of the passion that it would generate and the stimulus that it would give the country, but because of the economic impact that it would have on London.
The document that the Minister has produced is an excellent and welcome step, and I commend my additional points to her.
5.3 pm
Mr. Andrew Reed: It is a particular pleasure to participate in a sports debate, because although it can be noisy and rowdy, sport usually unites us across the Chamber. It is a bit of a shame that the debate has been held this afternoon, because I know that some hon. Members who regularly attend sports debates could not be here. I hope that we will have another opportunity to discuss the subject in the main Chamber.
I will declare an interest as an illustration—I do not want to bore everyone with localities. I am a member and a player at Birstall rugby football club, where I played on Sunday, and still play most weekends. Much of today's discussion has been about the links between schools and local clubs. With all due respect to Birstall rugby club, we are in the lowest of the lowest rugby leagues. I am also a member at Leicester Tigers, which will hopefully win the national league in the next two weekends. When we talk about a sport—in this case rugby—I understand the broad differences at its different levels. I pay £6 a week to play for my rugby club. I do not want to get out of paying that, but it just manages to cover the cost of our shirts and their washing throughout the season. Any money that filters down to a local club such as ours is important, because the link between the school and the club has broken down over the past 15 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) mentioned veterans. At 35, and with all due respect to those of that age, I have suddenly realised that I am eligible for veterans' rugby. Unfortunately, I am one of the younger players in the club, as there has been a 15-year break in rugby at the local school, so no youngsters are coming through. There is a danger that clubs like ours will fold. We are now down to one or two teams every Saturday, and the future looks bleak. There have been many amalgamations between local clubs because of a lack of players coming through.
The level of participation is crucial to developing a sporting future for all. The Lawn Tennis Association gave a clear example of that in a presentation three or four weeks ago, showing that 160,000 youngsters play competitive tennis on an average Saturday morning in France, but about 20,000 do so in the United Kingdom. Among the top 30 tennis players, the French have six or seven; we have two. It does not take a genius to work out

151WH
that the two countries have similar populations. On a pro rata basis, we should surely have the same level of achievement as our French counterparts. The link with the participation levels at under-14 years and under-15 years is clear. We simply do not have enough young participants.
After a few years of playing rugby on a Saturday afternoon, I admit that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston, it has been a revelation to me to enter the House and find that I can take part in football, hockey, tennis, swimming and a variety of other sports. Some of us, including some hon. Members present, are members of the gymnasium. I apologise if the group of rather sporting Members of Parliament before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is not representative of them all. I was pleasantly surprised at the level of sporting participation in the House, and at some of the past and present standards of one or two hon. Members.
We held a parliamentary rugby world cup in October, with New Zealand, South Africa, Japan, France, Ireland and ourselves participating. The visit of the new Japanese Prime Minister yesterday reminded us of how important that was. He was a try scorer in one of the Japanese team's games. He was not injured, unlike their Chief Whip in our game against them. I have great visions of him being carried off to the ambulance on a stretcher, mobile phone attached to his ear, dictating his press release. I am glad to say that he did not suffer too badly.
That tournament is an example of the links that can be made. We have played rugby regularly with the New Zealand Sports Minister. When it comes to sport, friendships cross the world. The tone of today's debate is indicative of the fact that the friendships from parliamentary sports teams are replicated by the way in which team mates work and interact in the House.
Loughborough is a prime example of how a sports strategy can be implemented. The university is famous for its sporting excellence, not only in the United Kingdom, but worldwide. I am delighted that it has been chosen as one of the hubs for the United Kingdom Sports Institute. I hope that the swimming pool, one of the star attractions of the £28 million-worth of work that will be done over the next two years, is started as quickly as possible. Also, a sports college will be located next to the university.
Loughborough is also home to the Youth Sport Trust, which, through the BT Tops programme, provides kits for primary schools and ensures that primary school teachers can teach basic team sports and games. Although participation has declined, I dread to think what it would have been without the Youth Sport Trust and the £7 million from Sport England, as well as money from organisations such as BT.
I shall briefly run through the points that hon. Members have made. Overall, the Government's strategy must be welcomed. It is not the usual glossy White Paper, with 50 or 60 words on the front, a bit in the background and a few pictures. I welcome the fact that it is a fairly wordy document, because it addresses the needs of the sports community rather than sports headline writers. It talks to people who participate in
152WH
sport, run sport and know what it is all about. I pay tribute to Sue Campbell of the Youth Sport Trust. who used her wide experience and expertise, gained through her direct participation at all levels of sport, to ensure that the document speaks to the sports community. The Government's strategy is excellent because it brings all those strands together.
We need to ensure greater participation in primary schools. Teacher training is an element of that, but there has also to be a link at secondary school level between schools and local clubs. School sports co-ordinators must work closely with existing resources—most counties have a rugby development officer, a tennis development officer and so on—so that activities are better co-ordinated, using the local clubs base to bring on the most talented youngsters and give them greater access to participation. Various parts of the country experience difficulties in that regard. I have a semi-rural constituency and agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on the problems faced by rural areas, such as small primary schools. I know one school that does not have enough pupils in a class year to put together an 11-a-side football team. if every boy in a class year wanted to play, and even if girls participated, they would have a team of only nine players. The school has successfully encouraged cross-country running and pupils run regularly on Saturday mornings, but team sports are seriously lacking. Add to that the transport problems experienced in the countryside and such schools are excluded from participating in sport.
We need to co-ordinate existing facilities. The Minister is right that there are many examples of best practice and good practice. If I visit the campus of Loughbourough University on any Friday afternoon, I can bump into a couple of hundred world athletes of various kinds. I did not realise that for three weeks there had been a new world champion life-saver and that he is British—the assumption is that we do not have world champions in this country—and based at Loughborough university. I did not know that there were life-saving world championships until that individual came back with the gold medal. We are doing well in many areas and we need to ensure that we replicate the best practice across the country.
The fact that there is a great deal of money in sport holds it back. The arts lobby and others have done well in coming to the Government for money and get most of their sponsorship money from that source, but people assume that sport, particularly football, has money. Those of us who participate in games—at a very different level—recognise that although a great deal of money goes into football, it filters quickly into the pay packets of the top premiership players. Football generally does not have a lot of money; that is a different concept. We need to ensure two things. First, at least 5 per cent. of that revenue should go to the grass roots, although I hope that we shall push for a higher percentage. Secondly, losing the television rights to non-terrestrial television poses a danger for the long-term health of some of the sports that we are discussing.
I declare an interest in rugby. I do not have Sky television, so I am unable to watch England matches played at home. The audience figures are worrying, because the vast majority of people are not able to watch England playing at Twickenham. If we are trying to

153WH
increase participation levels, youngsters need to be given the get up and go to participate by seeing their sporting heroes play. As everyone knows, it is almost impossible to get a tennis court when Wimbledon is on—one can get a tennis court in the local park during the rest of the year, but for those two weeks, when tennis can be seen on television, youngsters go out and participate. I would like the vast majority of sport to be available on terrestrial television so that we can encourage more youngsters to participate and see their heroes participating at every level—and seeing an England or UK team doing extremely well, because that encourages people to play.
Facilities are important and I am pleased that progress has been made on the sale of playing fields, which is a complex issue. In my village, Quorn, Canes Field is a classic example—a cricket field that is held by a charitable trust. The trust wishes to offer it to developers, who are offering a much bigger and nicer area just outside the village on which they will build a pavilion. To the trustees, that seems an attractive option. Unfortunately, it would remove a green space from the centre of the village and replace it with one outside the village, which is difficult to access. As a result, parents will have to use a car to take their children to kick a football around or play in the outfield, whereas at the moment, on any evening, especially when the weather is good, one can see children playing in a local and accessible field, which parents regard as safe. Although it is an attractive option on paper, I have fought against it, and have been supported by Sport England, local authorities and the local community. It is symptomatic of the difficult decisions that have to be made, although it falls outside the scope of the current regulations because it is not technically a school playing field, even though the trust is part of the school.
Coming from a very small local club, I know that tax concessions, rate relief and so on would make an enormous difference to the viability of such clubs, which are the lifeblood of future England teams, at whatever level and in whatever sport. Unless people are participating, and facilities are available locally, it will be a struggle to achieve the aims of this fine document. A little money or a small concession, such as rate relief, which would avoid difficulties between different local authorities, or at least make clear what would be incurred in a particular part of the country, would make an enormous difference. Lots of other things could be done, such as the elite performance programme, but I do not want to concentrate on those today. The focus of the document is entirely right—it should concentrate on increasing participation. We have the necessary expertise at Loughborough, Bath and Sheffield, but it can bear fruit only if we have enough people whose talent can be developed. If we have an ever-decreasing pool of talent in different sports, we will not win the number of medals that we once did. Competition is getting harder, because every other country is catching up.
I welcome the document, which is a comprehensive statement of what needs to be done. I wish that there were a couple of extra noughts on the figure of £75 million for the development of primary school facilities, but it is a good document that sets out a
154WH
strategy for the future. If it can be delivered, it will leave a lasting legacy in this country, and a better future for our sport.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister has permission to speak again.
5.17 pm
Kate Hoey: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall be as brief as possible. I hope that you have enjoyed the debate, which has been a great advertising campaign for various sports. It has been a most interesting way to spend the afternoon of election day. I welcome the contributions of all hon. Members. Of course the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) must argue, from an Opposition point of view, that the Government are not going far enough or not doing things in the right way. However, he and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, accept that the Government's strategy is broadly right. That is important, and I welcome their praise for the document.
Hon. Members have made useful contributions to the debate. In my long speech, I did not and could not mention everything. I welcome the comments that have been made about amateur sports clubs, tax exemptions and rate relief, which need to be addressed. The hon. Member for Ryedale accepted that the previous Government found it difficult to move on that issue, too. The problem unites sport, and Lord Phillips has recently worked closely with the Central Council of Physical Recreation and other organisations to discover a way to make progress on it. I am keen to listen to what people are saying and find a way of taking the issue forward, because the role of amateur sports clubs is crucial. There are so many things that would not cost huge amounts of money but would make a real difference to those small clubs.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) both on his marathon run and on the way in which he brought his medical expertise to the debate. He talked about the importance of a healthy life style, picking up on what other hon. Members said about the way in which young people's life styles are changing. We cannot dictate to young people on that issue or change them overnight, but we should be aware of the fact that they have so many more choices than we had.
I am aware of the problems suffered by rural areas that were mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). When we talk about deprivation, there is a tendency to assume that we are referring to the inner-city areas. Rural deprivation is different. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) mentioned the problems that pupils in small primary schools have in forming teams, but rural areas have other problems. The whole question of funding going to schools with the community use proviso is made more difficult if people have to travel a long way to take advantage of that community use, so we need to be flexible on that.
We will never completely take the risk out of sport and we would not want to, but the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall is right to refer to the problems raised by the growing litigation. That is a cost factor in sport that did not exist a few years ago.

155WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) reminded us of the economic benefits of sport and the benefits of private sector involvement. Sport does not merely provide a recreational purpose—it provides jobs, too. He also mentioned canoeists, who are not mentioned in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, and from whom I have received a number of letters on that score. Canoeing is not the only issue in that category; there are several other instances of sport in conflict with the use of land and water. For example, anglers have strong views about canoeists. People who go water-skiing and do motor sports on Lake Windermere have recently been outraged by the decision from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that the lake should not be used for those sports. Clearly, those dilemmas will always exist and the Government are not always best placed to sort them out. The sports world itself must sometimes take those difficult decisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) made a thoughtful speech in which he reminded us, in his own personal way, of how much sport can mean to young people and the difference it makes to their lives. He also talked about his great interest in sport for veterans. I was pleased to be at the veterans' championships, where there were some amazing performances. I found it an inspiration to see how those people had kept up their interest in sport.
I give the members of the all-party parliamentary football club my best wishes for their game at the Stadium of Light on Monday. They are lucky that the game is not on Tuesday, because they would not have been allowed to go.
Before I go on to the points made by the hon. Member for Ryedale, I will deal with the comments of the hon. Member for Colchester. I thank him for his support. Many of his comments show why we need the strategy. We need to bring people together. I broadly agree with everything that he said about the need for curriculum time to be guaranteed. However, the school day is increasingly no longer 9 to 3 or 3.30. What happens after school is—or should be, if the school is part of the community—part of the school day in the wider sense.
I discussed performance pay with the Office for Standards in Education and the Department for Education and Employment. Physical education teachers must be entitled to performance pay, because they do so much extra in addition to what is required. I shall not discuss whether I advocate a dedicated sports ministry, although I am often asked. An awful lot can be achieved under existing arrangements, and there is no point in spending months and years implementing different changes. Responsibility for sport has moved a great deal among Departments over the years, and we now need to deal with it.
Minority sports are crucial. It is a matter of debate whether to give a little money to all sports, to give more money to a few sports that are likely to win medals, or
156WH
merely to allow the best people in the country to represent their country abroad, even if they will not win. Sport itself, along with the United Kingdom Sports Institute, must help decide the priorities in the debate about world-class performers. I shall re-examine the case of Robin Knight; I recall the question, but cannot remember my answer. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Colchester has a copy of it.
The hon. Member for Ryedale made a huge number of points, and mentioned amateur sports clubs. I am pleased that we have his support and look forward to receiving the report from York. I shall not discuss Wembley, on which we have spent a great deal of time over the past six months. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Ryedale would expect the Secretary of State or me to be involved in the planning decision between the developer of Wembley national stadium and Brent council. We await the outcome of those discussions, which have been continuing for some time.
National lottery funding and the new opportunities fund are not being used for purposes for which lottery money should not be used. The new opportunities fund will be used to cover the extra expenses of', for example, sports equipment, coaching sessions and sports days, which would not be incurred without school sports co-ordinators. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Ryedale is suggesting that we pull the plug on healthy living centres and after-school work. I am keen for sport to receive its share of available resources by arguing its case.
The hon. Member for Ryedale mentioned Pickett's Lock. Much work remains to be done and I welcome his support. I shall keep him as well informed as possible. We shall keep a close watch on the matter. I am determined that it should not be subject to the procedural wrangling to which Wembley has been subject. I shall write to him with the details. The issue of the £75 million and the 20 per cent. threshold is complicated. Part of the role of the implementation group will be to raise such questions and ask for answers. The amount of money in the pot is limited and we must make it go as far as possible. I shall ensure that I write to hon. Members with the answers to any other questions that I have not formally answered.
I assure all hon. Members that no one was more delighted than me with the launch of the sports strategy. It was not put together overnight. It involved many people and much cross-departmental work, and sometimes felt like having a tooth pulled. However, now that it has been launched, the hard work to implement it begins. I look forward to working with all hon. Members present from all parties to implement the strategy and to give this country a sporting future of which we can all be proud.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Government's special advisers and their responsibilities. [119982]

  The Prime Minister

  [holding answer 20 April 2000]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 11 November 1999,Official Report, columns 826–28W. Since then, I have appointed Carey Oppenheim, Carl Sobhan and Chris MacShane. Dr. lain Anderson is no longer employed as a special adviser. In addition, ministerial colleagues have appointed the following special advisers: Margaret Ounsley (Chief Whip, House of Lords), Ruth Mackenzie (Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport), Andrew Hood (Secretary of State for Defence), David Wilson (Deputy Prime Minister), Michael Williams (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) and Andrew McMenaman (Secretary of State for Wales).

  All special advisers are employed under terms and conditions set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Schedule 1, Part 1 of the contract sets out the duties and responsibilities of special advisers.

  House of Lords Reform
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to announce the membership of the House of Lords Appointments Commission promised in "Modernising Government: Reforming the House of Lords" (Cmnd 4183). [121113]

  The Prime Minister
  Following an open recruitment exercise conducted in accordance with the principles of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, I have decided to appoint the following people, on the recommendation of the selection panel, as the independent Chairman and members of the Interim House of Lords Appointments Commission.

  The Chairman will be Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, the Chairman of the Pearson Group and Halifax plc and a cross-bench peer in the House of Lords. The leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have been informed and are content for Lord Stevenson to be appointed as Chairman.

  The independent members, chosen from a strong field of candidates, will be Mrs. Angela Sarkis CBE, the Chief Executive of the Church Urban Fund; Dame Deirdre Hine, previously Chief Medical Officer at the Welsh Office and Chairman of the Commission for Health Improvement; and Ms Felicity Huston, Chairman of the Northern Ireland
  182W
  Consumer Committee for Electricity and Deputy Chairman of the General Consumer Council of Northern Ireland.

  In addition, the Commission will contain a member nominated by each of the three main political parties. The Labour Party member is the right hon. Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. The Conservative Party member is the right hon. Lord Hurd of Westwell CH, CBE. The Liberal Democrat member is Lord Dholakia OBE, DL.

  The seven members of the Commission will combine knowledge of the existing House of Lords with a diverse range of personal backgrounds. They will be well-qualified to take forward the process of appointing non-political peers to the House of Lords on a more open and transparent basis and to take on responsibility for vetting all nominations for peerages.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Car Worker Retraining Programmes
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement regarding retraining programmes available to car workers made redundant at Longbridge and its suppliers. [119632]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Rover Task Force produced an interim report that was presented on 26 April to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who welcomed the proposals.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has pledged £129 million to assist the people and businesses of the west midlands and the report made a number of recommendations about short and medium-term actions that should be taken to regenerate the region. These include a number of initiatives that will tackle employee re-skilling and re-training for workers from Rover and its supplier chain who will be made redundant or whose jobs will be affected. Funding of more than £27 million has been approved to support this work, to help individuals and to aid supplier chain diversification which will include the re-training of up to 4,000 workers.

  The report also recommends three new initiatives to support employees which will:

  extend engineer secondments in the supply chain group through major vehicle companies;

  create access to an innovative on-line training system for the automotive supply sector;

  introduce a regional mechanism for the co-ordination of modern apprenticeships and new deal programme participants.

  senior Civil Servants
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what position(a) Mr. Jonathan Green and (b) Mr. Michael Atkinson (i) held in his Department on 1 January and (ii) will hold on 1 May. [120117]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Mr. Jonathan Green was Director, Energy Utilities on 1 January 2000 and was still in post on 1 May.
  183W
  Mr. Michael Atkinson was Director, Coal Unit on 1 January. On 1 May he moved to become Director, Resources, Business Competitiveness Group. His successor as Director Coal Unit will be Mr. Peter Mason.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the movements of senior civil servants from and to the division of his Department dealing with energy issues in the last six months. [120110]

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes have been made recently in the officials dealing with coal and industrial subsidy. [120207]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is as follows:Mrs. Ann Taylor moved into the Energy Group on 21 February 2000 to replace Mr. Alan Wright as Director, Coal Health Claims Unit in Energy Policy, Technology, Analysis and Coal Directorate. Mr. Wright moved on the same date to a post in the Department's Finance and Resources Management Directorate.
  Mr. Stephen Spivey moved into the Energy Group on 14 February 2000 to fill a temporary post in the BNFL Public Private Partnership Team. He then moved to a new post in Nuclear Industries Directorate as Director, UKAEA Quinquennial Review Team, on 10 April 2000.
  Dr. Stephen Sklaroff, Director, BNFL Public Private Partnership Team resigned from the Department with effect from 15 March 2000. Mr. John Rhodes moved into the Energy Group on 20 March to replace Dr: Sklaroff.
  Mr. Mike Atkinson transferred from his post Director, Coal Unit in Energy Policy, Technology, Analysis and Coal Directorate to a new post ad Director, Resources, Business Competitiveness Group on 26 April 2000.
  Mr. Peter Mason transferred from Consumer Affairs to Energy Policy, Technology, Analysis and Coal to replace Mike Atkinson on 2 May.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who his Department's(a) Director of Energy Utilities and (b) Director of Coal Units are. [120118]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The following is the information:

  (a) Mr. Jonathan Green

  (b) Mr. Peter Mason

  BMW
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if BMW has indicated that it would consider a bid for(a) the new Mini and (b) the R30. [120076]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer to the evidence given by Professor Samann to the Trade and Industry Select Committee on 29 March 2000.

  Media Discussions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he, his Ministers and his officials had with(a) Kevin Maguire and (b) Keith Harper of The Guardian during (i) the week beginning 10 April, (ii) Saturday 15 April and (iii) Sunday 16 April; and what subjects were discussed. [120109]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department maintains regular contact with a range of journalists.

  Post Offices
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices were closed in each year from 1992 to 1999; and how many were opened. [120797]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that historical data for the numbers of post offices opened are not available. The net numbers of post office closures are as follows:

  Year ending March

  Number

  1993

  202

  1994

  176

  1995

  175

  1996

  193

  1997

  163

  1998

  243

  1999

  233

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Out-of-school-hours Study
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to establish a new entitlement to regular out-of-school-hours study support for older primary pupils and secondary schools. [119635]

  Mr. Wills
  We know that taking part in out-of-school-hours study support improves pupil attitudes and is linked to better performance at school. Virtually all schools already provide some study support activities and around half of all pupils attend at least one activity per week. We want to extend that to all pupils, which is why we have announced our intention to provide all older primary and secondary pupils with the opportunity to take part in these activities.

  Evidence suggests that disadvantaged young people benefit most from the kind of study support opportunities that other young people may take for granted, such as learning to play a musical instrument or having the space or encouragement to do their homework. It is for these reasons that this Government have, for the first time, ring-fenced significant funding for study support, which we are targeting on young people from disadvantaged areas.

  To date, almost 2,000 schools have benefited from a share of the £240 million that is available for study support through the New Opportunities Fund. In addition to this, around 6,800 schools are expected to benefit this year from £20 million of Standards Fund money for study support, and this amount will rise to £60 million next year.

  Performance-related Pay (Teachers)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received regarding performance-related pay for teachers. [119638]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government's proposals for teachers' pay reform were initially outlined in the Green Paper, "Teachers: meeting the challenge of change"
  185W
  (Cm 4164). We have discussed our proposals extensively with all teacher unions and other key stakeholders. Following publication of the draft School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 2000 on 2 May, we are continuing discussions with statutory consultees.

  New Deal
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to extend the scope of the New Deal for the long-term unemployed. [119641]

  Ms Jowell
  The New Deal for those aged 25 and over has already helped over 38,000 people into jobs. This year we are investing almost £100 million in strengthening the advisory process, making it more intensive and work-focused, and in extending the existing pilots. From April 2001, this New Deal will be extended to all those who have been unemployed for 18 months or more. It will provide intensive support to find work, including high quality training and work experience, building on the successful approach of New Deal for young people.

  Information and Communications Technology
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that all social groups have equal opportunities for access to information and communications technology. [119643]

  Mr. Wills
  We are taking forward a range of measures to ensure that everyone can benefit from the advantages of new technologies. The ICT Learning Centres initiative will give many people living in disadvantaged communities in England the opportunity to access the Internet and ICT facilities. We have recently announced a pilot project to wire-up deprived communities to bring housing estates, tower blocks and rural areas on line. We are also introducing a scheme—"Computers within Reach"—to pilot arrangements for those who cannot afford new computers to acquire reconditioned computers. The recently published report of Policy Action Team 15 looked specifically at issues relating to the role of ICT in community renewal, including the availability of ICT to black and minority ethnic groups. We will continue to work with partners and the private sector to address the issue of closing the digital divide.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support has been given to teachers to ensure that they are able to utilise information and communications technology to raise standards. [119644]

  Mr. Wills

  The New Opportunities Fund is making available £230 million to support the training of serving teachers and school library staff in the maintained sector in the effective use of information and communication technology (ICT). The training is available to all teachers in maintained schools and is specifically targeted at using ICT in the classroom to support the National Curriculum. In addition, in the period up to 2002, the Department will have supported local education authorities expenditure of more than £700 million on ICT hardware, software and training for their schools.
  186W
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that people in deprived communities develop ICT skills for employability. [119625]

  Mr. Wills
  From 15 May, we will be making available 50,000 extra training opportunities in England for people claiming benefits to acquire basic computer skills with recognised first-rung qualifications. The courses will increase their chances of getting a job as well as enable those who wish to develop their ICT skills further. In addition, the Government are making £15 million available for a pilot scheme—"Computers Within Reach"—to enable 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. We recently announced a £10 million project to wire up disadvantaged communities, enabling people living in them to use the new information and communications technologies to access jobs, learning opportunities, Government and other services. We are also establishing around 700 ICT Learning Centres in the most deprived communities. These centres will offer access to those initial ICT skills that are increasingly essential to people's job and career prospects.

  Complaints Procedures
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to proceed with regulations requiring school governing bodies to establish a complaints system. [119645]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so, especially as the majority of schools have their own complaints procedures. We have to balance the advantages of setting out national minimum requirements against the disadvantages of introducing another bureaucratic burden. School staff should respond seriously to parental concerns and complaints, to avoid the need for them to go to governing bodies. And governing bodies, in their own interests, should have effective mechanisms in place for handling any parental complaints that do reach them, so that difficulties are resolved swiftly and fairly.

  Lecturers
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve the pay and conditions of part-time lecturing staff in further and higher education. [119646]

  Mr. Wicks
  Pay and conditions for FE and HE staff are an important issue, although the detailed arrangements are for employers to determine. We have increased the funding for higher education by over £1 billion over the four years to 2001–02. And we have made the biggest ever investment in FE, increasing funds from £3.1 billion in 1998–99 to £3.9 billion in 2001–02. We are encouraging employers and unions to work together on sensible ways forward under the improved circumstances we have created.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement
  187W
  on the implications of the recent report of the better regulation task force for the work of secondary school (a) teachers and (b) headmasters. [119647]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I welcome the report from the Better Regulation Task Force Review of Red Tape Affecting Head Teachers. It is a helpful contribution to the Government's campaign to raise standards in both secondary and primary schools.

  My Department is committed to do all that it can to help head teachers and classroom teachers focus on their priority task of raising standards of attainment for pupils. We have already taken steps to reduce needless bureaucracy, but we recognise there is more to be done. We will build on the work we have done and have given the £80 million in 2000–01 for small schools' administrative support.

  Headteachers (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the number of headteachers leaving the profession in Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [119648]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The leaving rate of headteachers in Gloucestershire during 1997–98 (the latest year for which figures are available) was 9.4 per cent., similar to the national rate of 9.6 per cent. Since that time the leaving rate of headteachers taking early retirement has declined, although the full figures for headteacher leavers are not yet available.

  Higher Education
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to improve teaching standards in higher education. [119649]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Quality Assurance Agency carries out subject reviews of provision in departments of higher education institutions. These include an assessment of the quality of teaching and the learning experience of the student. In addition, to reinforce the quality of teaching, the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education has been set up. Its purpose is to:

  enhance the status of teaching in higher education;

  maintain and improve the quality of learning and teaching in higher education;

  set standards of good professional practice that its members, and in due course all those with learning and teaching responsibilities, might follow.

  In July 2000, my noble Friend the Minister for Education and Employment in the Lords will award 20 ILT National Teaching Fellowships of £50,000 each. The awards will recognise and reward individual academics who have demonstrated excellence in teaching and support for learning.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on consultation with teachers' representative organisations about changes in their pay arrangements. [119650]
  188W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Since the publication of the Green Paper, Teachers: meeting the challenge of change (Cm 4164), in December 1998, we have consulted extensively with teacher representatives about the proposed changes to teachers' pay structure. On 2 May, we published a draft of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 2000 for consultation with statutory consultees including teacher unions.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his assessment is of the effect of the single status agreement on classroom assistants. [119651]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government take the view that schools and Local Education Authorities are best placed to decide on matters concerning the pay and conditions of local authority staff. The new Single Status Agreement was agreed nationally by local authority employers and staff unions under the auspices of the Local Government Management Board, but its implementation is being determined at local level.

  Disruptive Pupils
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to assist schools in dealing with disruptive pupils. [119652]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are providing more than £500 million over three years, backed up by new guidance on 'Social Inclusion: Pupil Support', to help schools tackle pupils' behavioural problems. From this September we are expanding the Excellence in Cities initiative to 21 additional local education authorities. This will include the provision of additional Learning Mentors and Learning Support Units to help schools better manage disruptive pupils.

  In addition, on 27 April my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £28 million to establish 360 LSUs outside Excellence in Cities areas; £8 million to establish 60 pilot LSUs to serve about 200 primary schools in existing EiC areas; a new £2 million innovation fund with the voluntary sector and employers to provide innovative programmes for excluded pupils and pupils at risk of exclusion; and a new £9 million pupil allowance scheme for secondary schools in EiC areas which accept difficult pupils outside the normal admissions round.

  Early Years Child Care
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in approving the plans submitted by the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships. [119653]

  Ms Hodge
  All 150 Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships for 2000–01 have now been assessed: 147 have been given full approval; one conditional approval; and three deferred approval.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Sure Start programme. [119654]
  189W
  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  Of the 60 Sure Start trailblazer programmes that were announced in January 1999, 57 have now received approval and are starting to help young children and their families. The remaining three 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 their final plans. This brings the number of Sure Start programmes so far announced to 129.

  Head Teachers' Pay
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received on head teachers' pay. [R][119629]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are engaged in a regular dialogue with representatives of employers and headteachers. The pay arrangements are based on recommendations made by the independent School Teachers' Review Body. We are committed to consulting all key stakeholders before any changes are made. The Government propose to make up to £70 million available over the two years 2000–01 and 2000–02 to support performance-pay awards for heads, as well as for deputies and Advanced Skills Teachers.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on class sizes in primary schools since May 1997. [119639]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The size of primary classes has gone down in each of the past two years after rising steadily throughout the previous 10 years. In January

  The number of free places provided for four-year-olds in the private, voluntary and independent sectors, by term, from autumn 1998 to spring 2000 (by LEA area)

  LEA number

  LEA name

  Autumn 1998

  Spring 1999

  Summer 1999

  Autumn 1999

  Spring 2000

  201

  City of London

  9

  5

  11

  3

  4

  202

  Camden

  520

  539

  578

  531

  522

  203

  Greenwich

  373

  301

  324

  337

  300

  204

  Hackney

  468

  471

  522

  546

  489

  205

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  212

  242

  285

  214

  221

  206

  Islington

  175

  209

  280

  203

  192

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  167

  173

  148

  120

  142

  208

  Lambeth

  447

  457

  580

  747

  836

  209

  Lewisham

  297

  249

  311

  320

  268

  210

  Southwark

  379

  355

  438

  370

  386

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  63

  66

  84

  64

  65

  212

  Wandsworth

  802

  910

  936

  786

  830

  213

  Westminster

  350

  353

  372

  358

  356

  301

  Barking and Dagenham

  13

  19

  30

  6

  28

  302

  Barnet

  361

  639

  820

  303

  592

  303

  Bexley

  367

  245

  348

  315

  263

  304

  Brent

  190

  263

  342

  207

  274

  305

  Bromley

  1,604

  1,192

  1,866

  1,683

  1,196

  306

  Croydon

  586

  689

  927

  552

  663

  307

  Ealing

  338

  411

  505

  0

  403

  308

  Enfield

  203

  507

  736

  185

  505

  309

  Haringey

  56

  116

  161

  53

  164

  310

  Harrow

  285

  246

  371

  305

  268

  311

  Havering

  96

  499

  763

  92

  460

  312

  Hillingdon

  378

  330

  377

  357

  323

  313

  Hounslow

  53

  85

  113

  50

  98

  190W
  1998, the average size of primary classes was 27.7. In January 1999, the figure was 27.5, and in January 2000 it was 27.1. The figure in January 1988 was 25.4.

  Age Discrimination
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps have been taken to publicise the Code on age diversity and to combat age discrimination in employment. [119640]

  Ms Hodge
  The Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment is at the heart of our campaign to tackle age discrimination. The Code was developed with the help of key partners, who are promoting it to their members.

  Initial advertising concentrated on personnel professionals and managers. The campaign I launched in February to promote the Code to a wider audience uses billboard posters, national and regional press and commercial radio. Further activities and events will continue until the end of the year.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places are provided by private sector providers in each local education authority as part of their agreed Early Years Childcare and Education Development Partnerships to provide all four-year-olds with an early years education place. [119196]

  Ms Hodge

  [holding answer 14 April 2000]The following table shows the overall numbers of places for four-year-olds in the private, voluntary and independent sectors by local education authority area from autumn 1998 to spring 2000. Figures are not collected separately on private sector places.

  The figures show variations between the school terms reflecting the differing admission arrangements to maintained schools operating in each local education authority area.
  191W

  The number of free places provided for four-year-olds in the private, voluntary and independent sectors, by term, from autumn 1998 to spring 2000 (by LEA area)

  LEA number

  LEA name

  Autumn 1998

  Spring 1999

  Summer 1999

  Autumn 1999

  Spring 2000

  314

  Kingston Upon Thames

  106

  206

  249

  137

  262

  315

  Merton

  183

  217

  232

  205

  242

  316

  Newham

  54

  33

  46

  77

  64

  317

  Redbridge

  503

  496

  593

  444

  463

  318

  Richmond Upon Thames

  348

  520

  693

  386

  564

  319

  Sutton

  283

  389

  322

  244

  375

  320

  Waltham Forest

  157

  164

  183

  201

  208

  330

  Birmingham

  409

  910

  1,259

  423

  1.005

  331

  Coventry

  109

  359

  514

  98

  361

  332

  Dudley

  277

  252

  419

  341

  258

  333

  Sandwell

  3

  45

  70

  9

  52

  334

  Solihull

  77

  144

  193

  90

  147

  335

  Walsall

  43

  62

  72

  55

  39

  336

  Wolverhampton

  81

  92

  130

  126

  103

  340

  Knowsley

  1

  19

  42

  0

  31

  341

  Liverpool

  194

  397

  600

  164

  436

  342

  St. Helens

  49

  162

  215

  57

  149

  343

  Sefton

  169

  335

  481

  155

  295

  344

  Wirral

  133

  565

  850

  227

  650

  350

  Bolton

  68

  239

  347

  77

  250

  351

  Bury

  98

  319

  457

  98

  287

  352

  Manchester

  147

  177

  200

  120

  157

  353

  Oldham

  59

  195

  285

  72

  255

  354

  Rochdale

  38

  165

  259

  26

  203

  355

  Salford

  202

  255

  270

  199

  226

  356

  Stockport

  233

  460

  618

  257

  433

  357

  Tameside

  10

  104

  173

  22

  153

  358

  Trafford

  226

  235

  417

  211

  367

  359

  Wigan

  14

  294

  539

  5

  322

  370

  Barnsley

  87

  117

  124

  123

  181

  371

  Doncaster

  54

  89

  111

  61

  104

  372

  Rotherham

  168

  185

  161

  170

  212

  373

  Sheffield

  644

  707

  852

  750

  786

  380

  Bradford

  95

  285

  424

  87

  324

  381

  Calderdale

  66

  175

  248

  58

  174

  382

  Kirklees

  139

  269

  445

  178

  323

  383

  Leeds

  300

  527

  701

  306

  520

  384

  Wakefield

  192

  216

  245

  194

  229

  390

  Gateshead

  78

  169

  240

  52

  206

  391

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  209

  278

  334

  197

  236

  392

  North Tyneside

  42

  48

  61

  31

  63

  393

  South Tyneside

  0

  15

  23

  0

  10

  394

  Sunderland

  58

  96

  131

  53

  103

  420

  Isles of Scilly

  11

  6

  10

  0

  4

  800

  Bath and North East Somerset

  114

  487

  758

  158

  455

  8O1

  Bristol, City of

  205

  522

  736

  220

  548

  802

  North Somerset

  97

  553

  868

  62

  507

  803

  South Gloucestershire

  69

  687

  1,171

  67

  686

  805

  Hartlepool

  10

  15

  24

  14

  0

  806

  Middlesbrough

  14

  16

  37

  25

  54

  807

  Redcar and Cleveland

  6

  11

  15

  3

  6

  808

  Stockton on Tees

  87

  61

  69

  85

  78

  810

  Kingston Upon Hull

  67

  190

  256

  56

  207

  811

  East Riding of Yorks

  308

  652

  900

  332

  691

  812

  North East Lincolnshire

  48

  173

  299

  48

  172

  813

  North Lincolnshire

  45

  145

  240

  38

  38

  815

  North Yorkshire

  438

  1,131

  1,772

  418

  1,109

  816

  York, City of

  224

  293

  428

  215

  338

  820

  Bedfordshire

  472

  774

  951

  518

  792

  821

  Luton

  146

  182

  209

  125

  206

  825

  Buckinghamshire

  1,300

  1,521

  1,759

  1,277

  1,583

  826

  Milton Keynes

  538

  606

  582

  579

  616

  830

  Derbyshire

  980

  1,043

  1,564

  988

  1,095

  831

  Derby, City of

  273

  277

  401

  295

  269

  835

  Dorset

  283

  1,155

  1,817

  255

  1,189

  836

  Poole

  92

  400

  612

  67

  397

  837

  Bournemouth

  147

  432

  662

  146

  444

  840

  Durham

  50

  210

  320

  48

  233

  841

  Darlington

  108

  98

  145

  95

  105

  845

  East Sussex

  352

  1,452

  2,292

  402

  1,448

  846

  Brighton and Hove

  262

  609

  884

  261

  675

  850

  Hampshire

  940

  4,222

  6,719

  919

  4,305

  192W 193W

  The number of free places provided for four-year-olds in the private, voluntary and independent sectors, by term, from autumn 1998 to spring 2000 (by LEA area)

  LEA number

  LEA name

  Autumn 1998

  Spring 1999

  Summer 1999

  Autumn 1999

  Spring 2000

  851

  Portsmouth

  130

  500

  802

  92

  508

  852

  Southampton

  83

  500

  819

  86

  514

  855

  Leicestershire

  1,597

  2,233

  2,562

  1,815

  2,452

  856

  Leicester, City of

  211

  284

  324

  223

  337

  857

  Rutland

  28

  94

  152

  20

  83

  860

  Staffordshire

  243

  554

  805

  237

  551

  861

  Stoke on Trent

  31

  69

  81

  45

  79

  865

  Wiltshire

  872

  1,720

  2,642

  965

  1,631

  866

  Swindon

  166

  569

  933

  120

  497

  867

  Bracknell Forest

  505

  506

  480

  523

  556

  868

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  630

  637

  769

  711

  748

  869

  West Berkshire

  431

  480

  481

  449

  439

  870

  Reading

  404

  460

  450

  505

  470

  871

  Slough

  173

  183

  183

  158

  152

  872

  Wokingham

  853

  877

  797

  854

  880

  873

  Cambridgeshire

  170

  1,384

  2,205

  219

  1,403

  874

  Peterborough

  28

  562

  886

  19

  497

  875

  Cheshire

  452

  1,825

  2,722

  381

  1,695

  876

  Halton

  5

  204

  348

  2

  211

  877

  Warrington

  14

  296

  597

  4

  342

  878

  Devon

  2,632

  1,959

  2,930

  2,726

  2,033

  879

  Plymouth

  1,122

  679

  1,094

  992

  580

  880

  Torbay

  333

  242

  399

  379

  244

  881

  Essex

  4,198

  4,742

  5,793

  4,104

  4,720

  882

  Southend-on-Sea

  516

  519

  692

  354

  524

  883

  Thurrock

  239

  198

  337

  224

  267

  884

  Herefordshire

  332

  430

  641

  266

  457

  885

  Worcestershire

  743

  1,618

  2,244

  743

  1,447

  886

  Kent

  3,595

  4,613

  7,290

  3,282

  4,600

  887

  Medway Towns (R&G)

  450

  801

  1,323

  1,109

  790

  888

  Lancashire

  321

  2,202

  3,562

  305

  2,333

  889

  Blackburn with Darwen

  50

  214

  253

  54

  179

  890

  Blackpool

  66

  369

  546

  75

  387

  891

  Nottinghamshire

  1,211

  1,268

  1,226

  1,212

  1,317

  892

  Nottingham, City of

  364

  382

  355

  380

  All

  893

  Shropshire

  1,165

  1,171

  1,007

  1,137

  1,169

  894

  Telford and Wrekin

  445

  432

  393

  446

  472

  908

  Cornwall

  306

  773

  1,137

  310

  825

  909

  Cumbria

  105

  468

  732

  88

  573

  916

  Gloucestershire

  393

  1,846

  3,019

  406

  1,950

  919

  Hertfordshire

  1,487

  1,662

  1,724

  1,517

  1,619

  921

  Isle of Wight

  45

  446

  707

  50

  466

  925

  Lincolnshire

  252

  1,137

  1,725

  239

  1,117

  926

  Norfolk

  1,445

  1,725

  2,758

  1,474

  1,693

  928

  Northamptonshire

  259

  1,409

  2,207

  290

  1,367

  929

  Northumberland

  36

  172

  258

  30

  160

  931

  Oxfordshire

  2,493

  2,534

  2,351

  2,388

  2,605

  933

  Somerset

  211

  1,440

  2,487

  250

  1,565

  935

  Suffolk

  1,031

  1,483

  1,754

  1,034

  1,400

  936

  Surrey

  2,195

  4,080

  5,515

  2,185

  4,064

  937

  Warwickshire

  387

  1,442

  2,103

  395

  1,366

  938

  West Sussex

  1,371

  2,630

  3,770

  1,349

  2,615

  Total

  59,708

  97,503

  134,926

  60,430

  99,290

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many disabled people have found work through the new deal for the disabled since its inception. [119633]

  Ms Hodge
  We have been piloting the New Deal for Disabled People since autumn 1998. Our experience shows that for many people on incapacity benefits the journey back to work will be lengthy. I am pleased therefore to be able to say that to the end of March this year some 2,755 people had found employment.

  Financial Literacy
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to improve levels of financial literacy. [119623]

  Jacqui Smith
  Financial capability is part of the new national guidelines for Personal, Social and Health Education which were issued to schools last year and come into effect this autumn. From the start of the school year 2002, secondary school pupils will also learn about the rights and responsibilities of consumers, employees and employers as part of Citizenship in the
  195W
  National Curriculum. This will be complemented by the work of the Adult Financial Literacy Advisory Group, set up to identify good ideas and existing best practice to give adults the skills and confidence to handle their finances.

  National Disability Council
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the National Disability Council will report on its recent activities. [121250]

  Ms Hodge
  I am pleased to announce that the National Disability Council's report for 1999–2000 has been laid before Parliament today. The report, copies of which are available in the Library, describes the work of the Council in its final full year of operation. A letter from the Council's Chairman, David Grayson, reporting on activities between 6 April and 24 April has also been laid today. It is also available in the Library.

  The work of the Council was subsumed by the Disability Rights Commission when it began operating on 25 April. This report and letter are, therefore, the final reports on the Council's activities. Accordingly, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work and commitment that Mr. Grayson and the Council's members brought to their work. They have made a positive impact and helped improve the lives of disabled people. I am particularly grateful to them for the way in which the Council helped pave the way for the Commission. Because of their good efforts the Commission inherited an exceptionally good base from which to begin its work.

  Number of sixth forms approved

  Local education authority

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Berkshire (pre 1 April 1998)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Bradford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Buckinghamshire (pre 1 April 1997

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire (pre 1 April 1998)

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Derby City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Derbyshire (pre 1 April 1997)

  —

  —

  2

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Devon

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Dorset (pre 1 April 1997)

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Dudley

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Essex (pre 1 April 1998)

  3

  —

  1

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Hampshire (pre 1 April 1997)

  —

  —

  3

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent (pre 1 April 19981

  1

  —

  1

  —

  25

  6

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire (pre 1 April 1996)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire (pre 1 April 1998)

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the prospectus and specification for the Connexions Service. [121261]

  Mr. Wicks
  I am pleased to announce that the prospectus and specification for the Connexions Service has been published today. Copies are being placed in the Library and will be sent to a wide range of organisations this week including members of the Learning and Skills Committee.

  Learning Accounts
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress on establishing the national framework for learning accounts. [121279]

  Mr. Wicks
  Implementation of the national framework is progressing to timetable. Individuals can currently open accounts under local arrangements with Training and Enterprise Councils. From mid-June they will be able to open them through the national framework and use their accounts for learning from September, benefiting from the full range of incentives available to learning account holders. I am pleased to announce that the Department has issued a letter of intent to Capita Group to start the development of these services under the national framework.

  School Sixth Forms
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools' sixth forms have been(a) closed and (b) opened in each LEA in each of the years 1992–93 to 1999–2000. [119691]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of sixth forms for each local education authority that have been approved to open or close since 1992 is given in the tables:
  197W

  Number of sixth forms approved

  Local education authority

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire (pre 1 April 1997)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Tameside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Trafford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire (pre 1 April 1997)

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 A number of these sixth forms had been operating prior to the publication of proposals

  Sixth forms approved to close

  Year

  Name of LEA

  Number of sixth forms

  1998

  Wakefield

  1

  1999

  Leicester City

  2

  1999

  Liverpool

  1

  1999

  North Somerset

  1

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what purposes his Department requires a birth certificate to be furnished by(a) employees, (b) contractors, (c) those applying for employment and contracts and (d) other persons. [120321]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department requests a birth certificate from the following persons:

  employees—where there is any doubt about their age, in circumstances where they are being considered for voluntary or compulsory early release or normal age retirement as prescribed by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and the Civil Service Compensation Scheme;

  those applying for employment—as reliable evidence of age, nationality and, with other documents, their identity;

  others—include those eligible children of members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme who die in service; where positive proof of their lineage is required so they can be paid pension entitlements.

  Although the Department does not as a rule request birth certificates from current contractors or those applying for contracts, there have been circumstances, where there is a doubt on age, where a birth certificate has been requested to establish whether their employees are within legal age limits for employment.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average amount received by(a) former grant-maintained primary schools and (b) former grant-maintained secondary schools as a result of cash protection in 1999–2000 expressed (i) in cash terms and (ii) on a per pupil basis. [120257]
  198W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table provides the information requested:

  £

  Average amount per school1

  Average amount per pupil

  Primary schools

  16,900

  60

  Secondary schools

  39,800

  41

  1 To nearest £100

  These figures have been estimated on the basis of information supplied to the Department by local education authorities.

  Benefit Entitlement (Over-60s)
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he plans to make benefit entitlement for those aged over 60 years dependent on their willingness to take up employment. [120912]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Performance and Innovation Unit report, "Winning the Generation Game", published last month made 75 recommendations about improving people's opportunity to contribute to society in their later working years. This included a recommendation that the over-60s exemption from JSA be removed as pension ages are equalised between 2010 and 2020. However, the Government have no plans before then to introduce forms of conditionality for older workers which would move beyond the requirement to attend for interview and advice on employment prospects and benefit from the generous programme of measures we have introduced to make work pay for the over-50s. Consideration of how the recommendations will be implemented will be taken in due course and will seek to build on the clear philosophy and policy already set out by the Government.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rural Households
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he plans to provide assistance to householders in rural areas of Northern Ireland who do not have access to mains water and sewerage connections. [121114]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I can announce that from today the reasonable cost limit for connection of an existing property to mains water supplies will be increased from
  199W
  £2,900 to £5,000. The reasonable cost limit for connection to the public sewers will also be increased from £2,300 to £4,000. This will enable nearly a third of all homes at present without running water—an estimated 6,000 in total—to link with the mains water and sewerage systems for the first time.

  Technical constraints mean it will still be impossible to connect some remote homes to mains supplies. These homes will continue to rely on private water supplies, some of which may not be entirely satisfactory. I have therefore instructed my officials to explore whether it would be possible to provide some form of assistance to help people who live in these remote dwellings to improve the quality of their private supplies.

  The maximum cost allowances available for the connection of new properties to mains water and sewerage services are currently under review. Revised charging guidelines for the provision of water and sewerage infrastructure to new properties will be introduced on 1 January 2001.

  In the interim, the current maximum cost allowances of £2,900 for connection to mains water supplies, and £2,300 for connection to public sewerage services will continue to be applied to all properties.

  Prison Service
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Prison Service intends to publish its 2000 to 2003 Corporate and Business Plan; and what performance targets have been set for 2000 to 2001. [121115]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service's Corporate and Business Plan for 2000–03 was published today. The following key performance targets have been set for 2000–01:

  1. To ensure 100 per cent. security for prisoners in high and top risk categories.

  2. To ensure at least 99.5 per cent. security for prisoners in medium and low risk categories.

  3. To ensure that the number of assaults by prisoners on staff is less than the 1999–2000 level of 9.4 per 100 prisoners.

  4. To ensure that the number of assaults by prisoners on prisoners is less than the 1999–2000 level of 9.5 per 100 prisoners.

  5. To achieve an 80 per cent. utilisation of available places in education, and training and employment workshops.

  6. To ensure that an average of at least 50 per cent. of the eligible prison population is working to a sentence plan.

  7. To evaluate the system of booked visits and, if appropriate, introduce to a second establishment by March 2001.

  8. To achieve an average of at least five days development and training per member of staff.

  9. To ensure that the average cost per prisoner place does not exceed the range £76,000-£81,000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what purposes his Department requires a birth certificate to be furnished by 200W
  (a) employees, (b) contractors, (c) those applying for employment and contracts and (d) other persons. [120319]

  Mr. Hain
  A birth certificate or similar documentary evidence may be required for one or more of the following reasons:

  Proof of identity

  Proof of eligibility under the Civil Service nationality rules

  Proof of age

  Kosovo
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the supply of demining equipment for use by BACTEC International in Kosovo. [121192]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have approved the export to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) of 18 sets of protective body armour and helmets for use by BACTEC International Ltd., an organisation engaged in humanitarian demining activities in Kosovo on behalf of the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK).

  These goods are on the Military List. UN Security Council resolution UNSCR 1160 (1998) imposed an arms embargo on the FRY. The only exception to this embargo is that in UNSCR 1244 (1999), which provides that prohibitions imposed by UNSCR 1160 shall not apply to the sale or supply of arms and related material for use by the international civil and security presence in Kosovo. We have notified the UN Sanctions Committee of this export and they have raised no objection. The export of the equipment required for demining purposes is not prohibited by the EU arms embargo.

  Echelon Surveillance System
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on debate within the EU on the Echelon surveillance system. [120774]

  Mr. Vaz
  Policy on the interception of communications is a matter for member states. There are, however, some areas which may impinge on surveillance and interception related matters, such as data protection, in which the EU has a legitimate interest. It is the long-standing policy of the British Government, as of many other governments, not to comment on alleged interception activity.

  International Criminal Court
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Governments other than that of the United States concerning the recent US proposal to provide a Supplemental Document and a Rule to Article 98 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. [120762]

  Mr. Hain
  We have received no such representations.

DEFENCE

  Richard Hudson
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to protect the rights of Mr. Richard Hudson, arrested for a driving offence in Macedonia in August 1999. [118359]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 11 April 2000,Official Report, column 112W, by the Minster of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain).

  Training Ammunition
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the supplies of training ammunition held by Challenger II tanks in Bosnia and Kosovo. [120790]

  Mr. Spellar
  Challenger II has only recently been introduced to Kosovo and is being introduced to Bosnia shortly. The supplies of training ammunition held by units for use by main battle tanks in Bosnia and Kosovo are entirely adequate for their needs. The facilities and opportunities for training in Bosnia are good, but the operational environment in Kosovo does not currently afford such good opportunities.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that small incinerators, used for the cremation of pets at pet cemeteries, will not become illegal when the EU Waste Incineration Directive is implemented; and if he will make a statement. [120720]

  Mr. Hill
  The proposed Waste Incineration Directive is now in the last stages of negotiations. It will not, however, affect existing incinerators for five years, and we are looking at implementation options which will minimise the burden on small animal incinerators, including pet crematoria, while ensuring that there are appropriate environmental safeguards.

  RMT Union
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what discussions he has had with the leader of the RMT Union in the last 12 months; [120721]

  (2) how many meetings with officials of the RMT Union he has had in the last 12 months; [120722]

  (3) how many RMT receptions and events he has attended in the last 12 months. [120724]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on 16 March 2000,Official Report, columns 335–36W.

  Aircraft Airworthiness Directives
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which categories of aircraft are covered by Civil Aviation Authority airworthiness directives issued via the Authority. [120759]

  Mr. Mullin
  The purpose of airworthiness directives is to specify actions which are necessary to ensure the continuing airworthiness of particular aircraft. An airworthiness directive will normally apply to a specific type of aircraft.

  Airworthiness directives will normally be issued by the State which is responsible for the design of an aircraft. The Civil Aviation Authority requires all aircraft on the UK register to comply with airworthiness directives issued by the State of Design. In addition, the CAA may issue airworthiness directives relating to any UK registered aircraft if they believe it necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what performance targets have been set for the Ordnance Survey Department and Executive Agency in 2000–01. [121081]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The following performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey in 2000–01:

  1. To achieve a revenue target of £82.3 million (excluding the National Interest Mapping Service Agreement).

  2. To achieve a return on sales of not less than 5 per cent. (excluding the National Interest Mapping Service Agreement).

  3. To ensure that, by 31 March 2001, at least 99.5 per cent. of existing major detail is surveyed and available to customers.

  4. To despatch 92 per cent. of small scale product ordered within three working days.

  5. OS will achieve efficiency savings across activities associated with collecting and maintaining the data held within the National Topographic Database, producing and distributing products/services to customers and all other associated support activities. The long-term target is to achieve an efficiency gain of 6 per cent. over the period April 2000 to March 2004. The target for 2000–01 is 1.5 per cent.

  6. OS recognises the importance of developing its website at www.ordnancesurvey.gov.uk to become the focus for electronic interaction with its customers and public. We intend that by improving the electronic services available for public and specialist users we will increase the number of visits to the Ordnance Survey website, compared with the last half of 1999–2000 by at least 100 per cent. by 31 March 2001.

  These targets, some of which are being increased, are closely associated with the key Corporate Aims of Ordnance Survey and demonstrate the Agency's continuing commitment to customers and to improved value for money for all its stakeholders.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers entered Britain on the Eurostar service in each of the last 36 months. [119989]
  203W
  Mrs. Roche
  Over the last 36 months there have been a total of 9,180 port asylum applications at Waterloo, and 165 at Ashford in Kent, which is also served by Eurostar. A month by month breakdown is provided in the table.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five. An asterisk means less than two.

  Month

  Number of port asylum applications at Waterloo

  Number of port asylum applicants at Ashford

  1997

  April

  170

  5

  May

  160

  *

  June

  180

  5

  July

  280

  5

  August

  425

  *

  September

  160

  *

  October

  150

  5

  November

  120

  *

  December

  200

  *

  1998

  January

  215

  5

  February

  210

  5

  March

  220

  5

  April

  215

  5

  May

  185

  *

  June

  335

  5

  July

  250

  5

  August

  340

  *

  September

  200

  5

  October

  200

  *

  November

  225

  5

  December

  285

  5

  1999

  January

  245

  5

  February

  270

  *

  March

  265

  *

  April

  285

  5

  May

  445

  15

  June

  600

  20

  July

  520

  10

  August

  215

  10

  September

  175

  5

  October

  190

  *

  November

  160

  5

  December

  270

  10

  2000

  January

  225

  5

  February

  285

  5

  March

  305

  5

  Total

  9,180

  165

  Offences punished and punishments given in prison—April 1999 to March 2000: HMP Everthorpe

  Confined to cell/room

  Forfeiture of privileges

  Stoppage or reduction of earnings

  Caution

  Other

  Additional days awarded

  All punishments

  All offences

  All offences

  93

  10

  64

  28

  8

  675

  878

  786

  Violence

  6

  0

  3

  1

  1

  26

  37

  28

  Assault on an officer

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  3

  Assault on an inmate

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  9

  7

  Assault on any other person

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Detains any person

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fights with any person

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  17

  23

  17

  Escape/absconds

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Escapes from prison or legal custody

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Attempted escape

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  204W
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have entered the UK through the port of Immingham since May 1997; and what were their countries of origin. [119407]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since May 1997 there have been no asylum applications lodged by passengers arriving at Immingham. However, the breakdown of those who entered the port of Immingham illegally and subsequently sought asylum is shown in the table.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  Total

  Afghanistan

  —

  —

  46

  24

  70

  Bhutan

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  China

  —

  —

  15

  18

  33

  Ethiopia

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  India

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  Iran

  —

  —

  4

  1

  5

  Yugoslavia (Kosovo)

  8

  11

  112

  19

  150

  Nepal

  —

  —

  1

  3

  4

  Pakistan

  —

  —

  4

  —

  4

  Romania

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Sri Lanka

  —

  13

  47

  19

  79

  Turkey

  —

  —

  11

  24

  35

  Total

  8

  24

  243

  112

  387

  1 To 16 April

  Homosexual Malaysian Nationals (Deportation)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on deporting Malaysian nationals who are known by the Malaysian authorities to be homosexual. [120749]

  Mrs. Roche
  Any application by a Malaysian national to enter or remain in the United Kingdom is considered on its individual merits, taking account of the Immigration Rules including the terms of any concessions, information and advice about conditions in Malaysia, and an assessment of any potential risk to the individual.

  Prison Adjudications
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the offences and punishments imposed at adjudications in HM Prisons Ashwell, Camp Hill and Everthorpe from March 1999 to March 2000 or the latest 12 month period available. [120624]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the tables.
  205W

  Offences punished and punishments given in prison—April 1999 to March 2000: HMP Everthorpe

  Confined to cell/room

  Forfeiture of privileges

  Stoppage or reduction of earnings

  Caution

  Other

  Additional days awarded

  All punishments

  All offences

  Disobedient/disrespect

  51

  6

  37

  20

  5

  204

  323

  273

  Is disrespectful

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  5

  9

  8

  Threats/abusive words or behaviour

  10

  4

  7

  4

  3

  50

  78

  62

  Fails/refuses to work

  4

  0

  13

  3

  1

  30

  51

  44

  Disobeys any lawful order subtotal

  32

  1

  14

  8

  1

  97

  153

  130

  Refusal to provide a sample for drug testing

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  17

  18

  18

  Falsifying a drug test sample

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Any other lawful disorder

  31

  1

  14

  8

  1

  80

  135

  112

  Disobeys any rule or regulation

  3

  1

  3

  3

  0

  22

  32

  29

  Good order and discipline offences

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wilful damage

  6

  0

  6

  2

  1

  22

  37

  31

  Sets fire to prison or property

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  3

  Destroys/damages prison or property

  5

  0

  6

  2

  1

  20

  34

  28

  Unauthorised transactions

  25

  4

  6

  3

  1

  360

  399

  384

  Of which drug offences

  13

  3

  0

  1

  1

  273

  291

  285

  Unauthorised use of controlled drug

  13

  3

  0

  1

  1

  270

  288

  282

  Possession of unauthorised drug

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sells/delivers drugs to person

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Receives drugs during visit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  3

  3

  3

  Of which other

  12

  1

  6

  2

  0

  87

  108

  99

  (a) possesses an unauthorised article

  9

  1

  6

  2

  0

  75

  93

  86

  (b) possesses greater quantity than authorised

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  Sells/delivers unauthorised article

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  8

  6

  Sells/delivers articles allowed only for own use

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  5

  Knowingly consumes alcohol

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other offences

  5

  0

  12

  2

  0

  62

  81

  69

  Denies access to any part of the prison to an officer

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  5

  3

  Endangers the health or personal safety of others

  2

  0

  7

  2

  0

  40

  51

  46

  Intentionally obstructs an officer in executing his duty

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  3

  Fails to comply with any temporary release condition

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  8

  7

  Takes any article belonging to another person or to a prison

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  4

  6

  4

  Absent from where required/present at unauthorised place

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  5

  8

  6

  Offences punished and punishments given in prison—April 1999 to March 2000: HMP Camp Hill

  Confined to cell/room

  Forfeiture of privileges

  Stoppage or reduction of earnings

  Caution

  Other

  Additional days awarded

  All punishments

  All offences

  All offences

  132

  139

  232

  21

  41

  354

  919

  593

  Violence Total

  23

  22

  17

  3

  11

  41

  117

  64

  Assault on an officer

  4

  5

  1

  0

  0

  8

  18

  8

  Assault on an inmate

  4

  4

  4

  0

  2

  4

  18

  7

  Assault on any other person

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Detains any person

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fights with any person

  15

  13

  12

  3

  9

  29

  81

  49

  Escape/absconds Total

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  5

  2

  Escapes from prison or legal custody

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  5

  2

  Attempted escape

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Disobedient/disrespect Total

  74

  73

  133

  14

  20

  103

  417

  247

  Is disrespectful

  4

  4

  3

  0

  2

  1

  14

  4

  Threats/abusive words or behaviour

  26

  30

  28

  1

  8

  26

  119

  56

  Fails/refuses to work

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Disobeys any lawful order subtotal

  33

  33

  66

  11

  10

  66

  219

  133

  Refusal to provide a sample for drug testing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  3

  Falsifying a drug test sample

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Any other lawful disorder

  33

  33

  66

  11

  10

  63

  216

  130

  Disobeys any rule or regulation

  11

  6

  34

  2

  0

  10

  63

  52

  Good order and discipline offences

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  206W 207W

  Offences punished and punishments given in prison—April 1999 to March 2000: HMP Camp Hill

  Confined to cell/room

  Forfeiture of privileges

  Stoppage or reduction of earnings

  Caution

  Other

  Additional days awarded

  All punishments

  All offences

  Wilful damage Total

  2

  3

  9

  2

  1

  9

  26

  15

  Sets fire to prison or property

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  Destroys/damages prison or property

  2

  3

  8

  2

  1

  8

  24

  14

  Unauthorised transactions Total

  20

  25

  34

  2

  2

  187

  270

  217

  Of which drug offences

  11

  15

  10

  0

  2

  159

  197

  163

  Unauthorised use of controlled drug

  9

  13

  9

  0

  2

  125

  158

  126

  Possession of unauthorised drug

  2

  2

  1

  0

  0

  32

  37

  35

  Sells/delivers drugs to person

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Receives drugs during visit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  Of which other

  9

  10

  24

  2

  0

  28

  73

  54

  (a) possesses an unauthorised article

  9

  10

  24

  2

  0

  25

  70

  51

  (b) possesses greater quantity than authorised

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sells/delivers unauthorised article

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  Sells/delivers articles allowed only for own use

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Knowingly consumes alcohol

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Other offences Total

  12

  15

  38

  0

  7

  12

  84

  48

  Denies access to any part of the prison to an officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Endangers the health or personal safety of others

  3

  2

  4

  0

  2

  0

  11

  5

  Intentionally obstructs an officer in executing his duty

  0

  1

  4

  0

  1

  2

  8

  4

  Fails to comply with any temporary release condition

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Takes any article belonging to another person or to a prison

  1

  2

  4

  0

  0

  3

  10

  8

  Absent from where required/present at unauthorised place

  8

  10

  26

  0

  4

  7

  55

  31

  Offences punished and punishments given in prison—April 1999 to March 2000: HMP Ashwell

  Confined to cell/room

  Forfeiture of privileges

  Stoppage of earnings

  Caution

  Other

  Additional days awarded

  All punishments

  All offences

  All offences

  2

  6

  324

  58

  2

  552

  944

  832

  Violence

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  15

  21

  17

  Assault on an officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  6

  6

  Assault on an inmate

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  5

  Assault on any other person

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Detains any person

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fights with any person

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  4

  10

  6

  Escape/absconds

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Escapes from prison or legal custody

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Attempted escape

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Disobedient/disrespect

  1

  2

  138

  30

  2

  137

  310

  263

  Is disrespectful

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  Threats/abusive words or behaviour

  0

  0

  26

  6

  1

  25

  58

  49

  Fails/refuses to work

  0

  0

  17

  2

  0

  12

  31

  23

  Disobeys any lawful order subtotal

  0

  0

  36

  3

  0

  55

  94

  79

  Refusal to provide a sample for drug testing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  Falsifying a drug test sample

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Any other lawful disorder

  0

  0

  36

  3

  0

  52

  91

  76

  Disobeys any rule or regulation

  1

  2

  58

  19

  1

  43

  124

  110

  Good order and discipline offences

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Wilful damage

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  4

  9

  5

  Sets fire to prison or property

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Destroys/damages prison or property

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  4

  9

  5

  Unauthorised transactions

  0

  2

  55

  12

  0

  274

  343

  323

  Of which drug offences

  0

  0

  4

  1

  0

  188

  193

  187

  Unauthorised use of controlled drug

  0

  0

  4

  1

  0

  176

  181

  175

  Possession of unauthorised drug

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  11

  11

  Sells/delivers drugs to person

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Receives drugs during visit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Of which other

  0

  2

  51

  11

  0

  86

  150

  136

  (a) possesses an unauthorised article

  0

  2

  49

  11

  0

  82

  144

  131

  208W 209W

  Offences punished and punishments given in prison—April 1999 to March 2000: HMP Ashwell

  Confined to cell/room

  Forfeiture of privileges

  Stoppage of earnings

  Caution

  Other

  Additional days awarded

  All punishments

  All offences

  (b) possesses greater quantity than authorised

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  3

  2

  Sells/delivers unauthorised article

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  Sells/delivers articles allowed only for own use

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Knowingly consumes alcohol

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other offences

  1

  2

  120

  16

  0

  122

  261

  224

  Denies access to any part of the prison to an officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Endangers the health or personal safety of others

  1

  0

  12

  2

  0

  23

  38

  33

  Intentionally obstructs an officer in executing his duty

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  Fails to comply with any temporary release condition

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Takes any article belonging to another person or to a prison

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  5

  6

  6

  Absent from where required/present at unauthorised place

  0

  2

  107

  14

  0

  90

  213

  181

  Samar Alami
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons Samar Alami was returned to HM Prison Durham from HM Prison Holloway before she had been able to use all her accumulated visiting time; why this return was made without(a) warning and (b) explanation; and if he will make a statement. [120678]

  Mr. Boateng
  Samar Alami was returned to Durham prison two days early, before she had completed her accumulated visits, as a result of an administrative error. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused. Ms Alami will be credited with her unused visits and will receive an apology.

  Schengen Information System
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 April 2000,Official Report, column 236W, concerning the Schengen information system, which treaty, article or protocol provides the EU treaty base for the system. [120742]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Schengen Information System has not been allocated any specific legal base, and is accordingly deemed to be based on Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, in accordance with Article 2(1), fourth sub-paragraph, of the Schengen Protocol (Protocol No. 2 annexed to the European Communities Treaty and the Treaty on European Union).

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute a review of his decision that General Pinochet was unfit to stand trial in this country following subsequent medical evidence; and if he will make a statement. [120546]

  Mr. Straw
  I am not aware of any subsequent medical evidence which would call my decision in this case into question.

  Prisoners (Average Wages)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average wage for prisoners who were(a) unemployed, (b) on the basic level of regime, (c) on the standard level of regime and (d) on the enhanced level of regime, in the latest year for which figures are available. [120689]

  Mr. Boateng
  Above prescribed minimum rates, levels of prisoner pay are set at governor's discretion and will vary depending upon the type of work offered and the regime in place. At present, establishments do not provide headquarters with the information required to answer this question. The multi-faceted nature of regimes in the Prison Service estate means that the collation of these statistics would entail expense beyond acceptable levels.

  Vivisection
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the operation of the confidentiality agreement between his Department and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection in relation to offences committed under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. [117710]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien

  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 2000, c. 601–02W]The word 'enforcing' was inadvertently substituted for the word 'entering' in the final paragraph. The final paragraph should read:Although in evidence in the consultation on Freedom of Information, they made representations that the Home Office should have a presumption against entering such an agreement, the BUAV requested such an agreement in connection with this case.

CABINET OFFICE

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office in how many cases the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration were not implemented by the relevant Government Departments in each of the last five years. [120346]
  211W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government normally accept, and implement, the Parliamentary Ombudsman's recommendations in full. I am not aware of any cases over the past five years where a recommendation made by the Ombudsman has not been implemented by the Department concerned.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Social Housing (Digital TV)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will hold meetings with the local government associations and the Housing Corporation to ensure that communal aerials in social housing are upgraded to enable the tenants to purchase and use digital television and receive an adequate digital signal. [118965]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government recognise the difficulties which those who rely on shared aerial systems may face in receiving digital transmissions. The ITC, the BBC and the digital broadcasters all provide free advice about the technical solutions available and a number of local authorities have already agreed technical solutions with the digital broadcasters. However, I am arranging to meet representatives of the LGA and the Housing Corporation to draw their attention to this issue, and I will write to my hon. Friend to let him know the outcome of that meeting.

  Parliamentary Question
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will reply to the question tabled on 7 March by the hon. Member for Westbury concerning the capacity of a venue suitable for staging the World Athletics Championships (ref. 114146). [119044]

  Kate Hoey

  [holding answer 14 April 2000]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 2 May 2000,Official Report, column 16W.

HEALTH

  Depression (Teenagers)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to raise awareness of general practitioners of best practice in treating teenagers affected by depression. [119668]

  Mr. Hutton
  This year £5 million from the National Health Service Modernisation Fund has been allocated to health authorities in order to improve child and adolescent mental health provision at the primary care level.

  In addition to maintaining awareness of mental health developments through extensive vocational training and professional development throughout their careers, general practitioners are closely involved in the mental health priorities set out in "Our Healthier Nation", National Priorities Guidance, and the National Service Framework on Mental Health which together underline our commitment to mental health and the role of GPs in its treatment.

  Private Management Contracts
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private management contracts have been awarded within the NHS since May 1997; and if he will list the value of the contracts by NHS region. [118862]

  Mr. Denham

  [holding answer 20 April 2000]The information requested is shown in the table. It relates to schemes approved since May 1997 under the private finance initiative which have reached financial close with capital values over £1 million.

  Region

  Number of schemes reached financial close

  Capital value (£ million)

  Northern and Yorkshire

  12

  416.54

  Trent

  7

  29.25

  Eastern

  2

  167.90

  London

  9

  405.40

  South East

  9

  182.24

  South West

  6

  117.81

  West Midlands

  5

  181.10

  North West

  5

  89.20

  Total

  55

  1,589.44

  Health Records
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision exists for NHS patients to dispute factual inaccuracies in their health records. [120745]

  Ms Stuart
  Under the Data Protection Act 1998 patients have a right to know what is in their health records. If a patient believes that information recorded about them is inaccurate they have a legal right under the Act to request that the inaccurate information is amended or deleted.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2000,Official Report, column 744W, on genetically modified crops, if he will list the antibiotics to which marker genes used in the production of genetically modified animal feed convey resistance and the medical uses of those antibiotics. [120723]

  Ms Stuart
  The antibiotic resistance marker genes in question are among those detailed in the reply given to my hon. Friend on 8 March 2000,Official Report, column 744W, to which she refers. Not all of these marker genes have been used in products capable of use for animal feed. Those which have are listed in the table:

  Gene

  Antibiotic

  Kan (nptII or neo)

  Amnioglycoside antibiotics including kanamycin and neomycin

  Strep/spec (or aad)

  Streptomycin and spectinomycin

  Amp (or bla)

  Narrow spectrum lactam antibiotics such as ampicillin and amoxycillin

  The medical use of these antibiotics is as given in the previous reply.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Regeneration-related Initiative
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list for each(a) area-based and (b) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible (i) the amount budgeted and (ii) the total expended in each financial year for the planned lifetime of each initiative; [119791]

  (2) if he will list the number and value of (a) bids for and (b) grants made in each of the last three financial years for which figures are available, for each (i) area-based and (ii) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible. [119799]

  Mr. Rooker

  [holding answer 20 April 2000]This Department is not directly responsible for funding regeneration-related initiatives. However, the Department provides substantial support for people living in deprived areas through the benefits system and the range of improvements to the welfare systems since 1997.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners had an income less than £10 above the minimum income guarantee in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and what is his estimate for 2001–02. [119943]

  Mr. Bayley

  [holding answer 20 April 2000]Estimates for the years 1999–2000 and 2001–02 are not available. This is because the Departments modelling system cannot make future projections, and producing like for like figures for previous years would involve disproportionate costs due to modelling and data changes between years.

  In 2000–01 an estimated 515,000 pensioners have an income of up to £10 above the minimum income guarantee level.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in 2000–01 prices and benefit levels.

  2. Cases have been rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  3. The figure has been calculated using the Pensioner Income Series Data based on the 1997–98 FRS and the Policy Simulation Model (PSM) for Income Related benefits, based on 1997–98 Family Resources Survey data.

  4. The Department's Policy Simulation Model is built to represent the baseline situation in mid-2000–01 and is then used to assess the effect of changing policy against that base case. Consequently estimates are only available for the part of the question that relates to this time period.

  Carers' Benefits
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to raise carers' benefits taking into account the increase in the minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [120391]

  Mr. Bayley
  Invalid Care Allowance is an income maintenance benefit which is paid to help protect the carer from the financial effects of being unable to work full-time. It is not intended to be a carer's wage nor a payment for the services of caring. Its rate, therefore, is not linked to, or dependent on, the National Minimum Wage.
  214W
  However, we are committed to keeping financial support for carers under review and we are continuing to do this, in the context of follow-up work to the National Carers' Strategy, and our response to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care.

TREASURY

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what purposes his Department requires a birth certificate to be furnished by(a) employees, (b) contractors, (c) those applying for employment and contracts and (d) other persons. [120311]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Each of the Chancellor's Departments and agencies (HM Treasury, HM Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, National Savings, Office for National Statistics, Royal Mint, Government Actuary, Debt Management Office and Valuation Office Agency) requires, as part of the basic check on new employees, some evidence of identity; age (for pensions purposes); and of the right to work in the UK. Such evidence depends upon whether or not the applicant is a UK or EC national but might be provided from a combination of different documents including a full British passport, P45, valid British driving licence, birth certificate, proof of residence at a given address, etc, or (where relevant) a full EC or other national passport; an identity card issued by an EC country; or other proof of immigration status and/or the right to work. Most Departments also require contractors to make checks similar to the basic check on their employees.

  Birth certificates, as evidence of identity, are not required to be furnished by other persons.

  Annuities
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the results of the review by the Inland Revenue of the income drawdown arrangements for annuities; and if he will make a statement. [120201]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Changes to simplify the administration of income drawdown where purchase of an annuity from a personal pension scheme has been deferred were announced in a press release issued on 7 April 2000 by the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue. These changes reflect representations made during the recent Inland Revenue review and will be implemented in the current Finance Bill along with amendments to secondary legislation.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the privatisations since 1979 together with the number and percentage of shares allocated to the employees at the date of privatisation and the number and percentage of shares so held(a) one year after privatisation and (b) three years after privatisation. [120618]
  215W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government have not collected information on the number and percentage of shares held by employees in privatised companies either at the time of privatisation or since then. Such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Voicemail
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what was the total cost of the installation of voicemail in(a) Norman Shaw North and (b) other parliamentary buildings; what performance targets have been set for the operation of the system; and how many performance targets have been missed and on how many occasions in the last 12 months. [119853]

  Mr. Allan
  The Information Committee endorsed the House-wide introduction of the CCTA/Global Crossing Voice Mail service at its meeting of 10 May 1999. The cost of the service in 1999–2000 was around £92,000. The costs cannot be broken down by building as the system is a function of the central parliamentary switchboard which does not require the installation of local equipment.

  The day to day performance of the system and associated targets are operational matters for the Head of Telecommunications. I have therefore asked him to respond directly to the hon. Member on the performance of the system against target.

  Susan Hamilton Secretarial Agency
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee in respect of the Susan Hamilton Secretarial Agency, what rent is paid for 216W
  the accommodation it occupies in the House; what the terms of the tenancy are; when the (a) rent and (b) tenancy is next subject to review; if it will be subject to tender; and what the ratio is of Members of the House of (i) Lords to (ii) Commons who use it. [119854]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms; I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Gambia
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will review the Government's aid to the Government of The Gambia following the recent deaths of demonstrators in pro-democracy marches. [120302]

  Clare Short
  We remain deeply concerned at the death and injury of students in the demonstrations on 10 and 11 April. The UK made immediate representations to the Government of The Gambia protesting at the handling of the demonstrations. A Coroners Inquest is already sitting and a full Commission of Inquiry is being set up to establish responsibility for the events. We continue to monitor the situation closely and urge the Government of The Gambia to ensure the inquiry is independently led, transparent, and free from political interference.

  Since the resumption of our development programme in The Gambia in 1998, we have committed over £4 million to projects through government and civil society, aimed at improved governance, social inclusion, education management and capacity building for community based organisations. We are keeping the programme under constant review in the light of the Government's policies for the reduction of poverty, and respect for human rights.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Sinn Fein and the Peace Process
Baroness Seccombeasked Her Majesty's Government:
In light of the revelations at the Saville inquiry about Mr Martin McGuinness and the decisions of Sinn Fein at its annual conference, how they see the role of Sinn Fein in the future of the peace process.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleiton: My Lords, allegations made to the Saville inquiry are for the inquiry to consider. In signing up to the Belfast agreement, Sinn Fein committed itself to using exclusively peaceful methods in pursuit of its political goals. So long as it remains committed to exclusively peaceful methods, the Government will continue to work with Sinn Fein to achieve the full implementation of the agreement.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Perhaps I may press her on one point. Assuming that Her Majesty's Government believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are one and the same, do the Government stand by repeated statements by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that there will be no devolution to include Sinn Fein unless there has been decommissioning?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we all want to see decommissioning. The Government's position is that we will work with the Irish Government and with all parties to achieve the objectives and the implementation in full of all parts of the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the two Prime Ministers are meeting this evening or tomorrow in Belfast? Does she agree that the negotiations are going through a very sensitive stage and that it is important that they are conducted discreetly and privately, and not through megaphone diplomacy?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. The Prime Minister is travelling to Belfast this afternoon to have meetings with the Irish Prime Minister and the political parties there. It is intended that the meetings will continue tomorrow. As my noble friend said, at such a sensitive
1122
time I know that no noble Lords would want to discuss matters which could in any way jeopardise these delicate negotiations.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would not Sinn Fein carry much more weight, in the short term and the long term, if it were to renounce the IRA?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I must reaffirm the statement that I made in response to my noble friend Lord Dubs. The agreement and the parties to it remain committed to peaceful means to secure democratic objectives.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, Mr Mandelson was reported this week as having pointed out on the "Today" programme that decommissioning was an issue placed on the agenda by the previous Conservative government. He went on to say that it was in a sense ironic that this "key obstacle", as he described it, had not been introduced by either unionists or republicans. If I may ask the noble Baroness this question in no way through a megaphone, what does she think was the point of that observation? Did it presage a sliding away from the present Government's own insistence on decommissioning, and also from Labour's earlier unqualified endorsement of that requirement when in opposition?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the statement referred to by the noble and learned Lord was one in which a view was being expressed with regard to the historical context of developments. I know that the noble and learned Lord is al one with the Government in seeking to ensure that the negotiations that are taking place today and tomorrow have the very best chance of achieving the objective. The Government have not changed their position on any of the items that are included in the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Baroness has said; however, I should like to have the matter clarified once and for all. Do Her Majesty's Government believe that it is right in any democracy that parties should be admitted into government while they are still inextricably linked to a highly armed terrorist organisation? Would not any proposal to admit Sinn Fein into government without a commitment from the IRA to decommission its illegal arms and explosives represent a total debasing of our democracy?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, when they voted for the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland voted for genuinely inclusive government. We remain committed to that. The Government's view remains absolutely clear: we must move forward on all aspects of the agreement.

1123
Decommissioning remains an essential part of the peace process. We shall continue to work for its implementation in full.

House of Lords: Standards of Conduct
3.12 p.m.
Lord St John of Fawsleyasked the Leader of the House:
What action she has taken in relation to the proposed inquiry by the Committee on Standards in Public Life into standards of conduct in the House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not regard the following Answer as a rather mundane list of activities.
Following an initial approach from the noble Lord, Lord Neill, about his plans to fulfil the long-standing commitment to undertake this inquiry by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, I welcomed that approach and the inquiry; a welcome, I am glad to say, that was echoed by the Leaders of the Opposition parties when the noble Lord, Lord Neill, approached them.
I have also consulted the House authorities on procedural matters, as I informed the House I would do on 13th March. The advice I have received has confirmed that there is no formal action that I could or should take at this stage. Informally, I have held discussions with colleagues on these Benches. I have also this week held a very useful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Rodgers.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for that comprehensive reply. Can the noble Baroness allow herself to bring in the Procedure Committee in some way which is fully in accordance with precedent? Can she confirm that when these matters come to be decided the decision will be taken by the House as a whole, it is to be hoped free from the imposition of any whips, pressures from the noble Baroness, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, or for that matter the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, and his Committee on Standards in Public Life?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that once the Neill Committee has reported there will be responsibility to consider any report or recommendation that he and his committee may make and to act upon it in any way the House wishes. At that time I will do everything I can to facilitate the House's consideration of the committee's report, whatever form such consideration takes. Once that moment is reached, it will be a question for discussion in detail by the usual channels.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, what form will this discussion take? Shall we all be interviewed
1124
individually about our past? Some of us have held commissions in the Army. I believe that it could be a terrible waste of money and effort. If anyone is worthy of being interviewed—mine has been an ordinary life—I am among the first to be willing to be interviewed; but what is the purpose of it all?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the purpose of it all was well set out in the original work done in 1994 when the original committee was set up under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, has now succeeded to chairmanship of that committee. I understand that some of the detailed questions would more properly be put to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, and his colleagues. However, I am sure that the noble Duke is aware that the noble Lord, Lord Neill, has circulated already a programme of the way in which he intends to conduct the inquiry. He has invited every Member of your Lordships' House, if they so wish, to submit written evidence to him. I also understand from the informal discussions I have had with the noble Lord that he will invite some Members of your Lordships' House to give oral evidence if they wish to do so. There is no obligation on anyone to take part.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I speak as someone who is as sensitive as anyone to the rights and privileges of your Lordships' House. (I am still somewhat amazed that I am a Member of it, but that is by the way.) While asserting that we have the final say in the way in which we conduct our affairs, is it not wholly reasonable to ask the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee to be the body which considers these matters? That still leaves us able to choose what we do including, I assume, asking the Procedure Committee to consider the matter after the committee has reported.
It seems to me—am I not right?—that what we propose is the right way forward. We should not be fussing about the issue as long as we can decide what we want to do, as the Minister confirms.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am happy to confirm again what my noble friend says. It will be up to the House to decide what it wishes to do with any report or recommendations that the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, makes. I agree with my noble friend that that seems a sensible way to proceed.
I correct him marginally on one point. This is not done by invitation. It is a committee entirely independent of both Houses of Parliament. It was set up in precisely that way in the mid-1990s.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, is it not right that the House should not be too touchy about this matter? We pride ourselves on being one of the two Houses of Parliament. The House has had a certain measure of reform. Individual Members of the House can deal with the Neill Committee in the way they choose. As the Minister said, the House will decide. If we are too touchy about the matter will it not suggest

1125
that we have something to hide? Does the noble Baroness agree that if we have nothing to hide we should be as open as we possibly can?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, if the noble Lord invites me to make a political judgment, which is slightly different from my position as Leader of the House in attempting to facilitate, I hope, the sensible workings of this particular investigation, I wholly agree with him. Over the past year this House of Parliament has spent many hours asserting the importance of its role and, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is keen to remind us on occasions, its improved legitimacy. It is right that we should be as transparent as possible about the way in which we conduct our individual and collective business. I agree with the noble Lord if he asks me to make that judgment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble Baroness now regret her failure to make an oral Statement to this House to announce the inquiry under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Neill? Would that not have dealt with a good number of concerns raised outside this Chamber? Further, does the Leader of the House agree that significant differences exist between this House and the other place and that any inquiry should recognise those from the very start?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very happy to agree with the second point just made by the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, readily appreciates that the membership of the House of Lords is very different from that of the other place. As to the noble Lord's first question, I have no regrets. This committee operates independently. As the noble Lord knows full well, at the beginning we had some concern that the arrangement agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Neill, that this procedure should be announced by way of Question for Written Answer was overtaken by a leak in a newspaper. I have no regrets that it was done in the way that it was, although I was unhappy that it was precipitated by outside intervention.

EU Climate Change Targets: Progress
3.21 p.m.
Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether sufficient progress is being made within the European Union to achieve the climate change objectives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, during the UK presidency in 1998 member states reached agreement on how to share out the European Community's targets at Kyoto. They also agreed that action was needed at both national and EU level to deliver those targets. In March the European Commission
1126
published a communication which suggested that, on current trends, only the UK, Germany and Luxembourg were on course to deliver those targets. However, member states are now developing programmes to ensure that they reverse these trends and deliver their targets. The Commission communication also outlined plans for a new European climate change programme to build consensus on EU level measures to reduce emissions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I am delighted that the UK is among those leading the way. First, as a result of its good example, will the UK support fully the efforts of the Commission to get the necessary initiatives going to ensure that the whole of the European Union achieves the very desirable objectives that have been set? Secondly, does the Minister agree that, important though the European climate change problem is, it is even more serious in the Far East and that as China and India develop their economies by use of their large reserves of coal—which, in view of my past, I fully support—there could be adverse environmental impacts which would affect all of us? Therefore, will the European Union take the initiative to ensure that clean coal technology and other measures of that kind are developed and supplied to these countries?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, certainly, the UK Government are very much to the fore in EU councils in encouraging the Commission and other institutions of the Union to develop viable and robust policies which can be implemented at both EU level and among member states. The British example is important in some respects here. It is important that all EU countries meet their commitments under the EU bubble in order that the Union can deliver its own overall target. That has implications for the wider agreements at Kyoto. In particular, the commitments of rapidly developing countries like China and India, with very large potential carbon emission problems, mean that we must make maximum efforts in terms of both political will and helping with technology. One of the main preoccupations of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is to ensure that in particular China and India come on board and meet their commitments to the Kyoto objectives. A good number of the detailed issues will be resolved in the COP 6 meetings later this year.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, do the Government have any evidence to suggest that climate and other environmental objectives are better achieved through the scientific fog and incompetence of the European Union than they would be through international governmental collaboration?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is quite clear that if we, as the political leaders of this generation, do not act collectively to address these environmental problems the problems in 10 or 20 years' time will be catastrophic for the planet as a whole. The fact that the European countries have agreed to act together on this matter is a major achievement, but that is only part of

1127
the jigsaw. Given that there is a common European position, it is of great assistance that, as in Kyoto and in subsequent discussions, the EU acts collectively on the basis of firm scientific and detailed technical work in dealing with the United States and developing countries and reaching a global position. Co-operation is essential, and the first key ingredient is European co-operation.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, given global need and international economic opportunity, is it not appropriate at this stage for Her Majesty's Government to give the same priority to the encouragement of clean coal technology as they give to renewable energy supplies?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are two aspects. As to clean coal technology, a good deal of effort is being made within the UK and Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out that we must ensure that as far as possible China, India and other major developing countries are able to make use of the best clean coal technology. Part of the jigsaw of energy use must also be to increase greatly the use of renewables. The UK has set itself the very challenging target of a 10 per cent take-up of renewables by 2010.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that progress in renewable energy is sufficient to enable those targets to be met, particularly within the United Kingdom?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not satisfied with progress so far. However, there is now a new determination by this Government and much of industry to develop renewable sources and a belief that the target is achievable. It is a challenging target. We have not made much of a start in meeting that challenge in the past 10 years, but we are now determined to do so.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that British representatives in the EU, who are in touch with the European Association of Motor Manufacturers, which in turn is in touch with the Americans and Japanese, continually press for the adoption of the best available technology rather than the use of old methods and the continual postponement of the date of the introduction of the best environmental methods?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there has been substantial progress in relation to European standards of motor vehicle emissions. The noble Lord was present last night when we debated European and British efforts in relation to alternative fuels. As to petrol and diesel-driven engines, the EU target of a 25 per cent improvement in emissions will now be achieved. There is a commitment to the European voluntary code among European manufacturers, and I am gratified that that is now being adopted also by the Japanese and Americans.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is precisely because the EU made a
1128
joint commitment at Kyoto to a 10 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide and other gas emissions that we can put pressure on the United States, which so far has done virtually nothing, despite the fact that its energy price is only half that of Europe?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a concerted European stance at Kyoto and beyond gives us greater leverage in relation to developing countries and the United States in all these negotiations. The position within the United States has hitherto been disappointing. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister was there only last week and detected a bit of a shift in both corporate and political opinion, although I do not believe that there will be any serious move in the US until after certain elections take place later this year.

Rover and Ford: Prices and Sales
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknishasked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect their campaign on the price of motor vehicles in the United Kingdom has had on the manufacture and sale of Rover and Ford cars in this country.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, in March 1999, the Director-General of Fair Trading referred the issue of new car prices to the Competition Commission for investigation. The Government's announcement on 10th April of their decision to implement the remedies recommended by the Competition Commission is intended to meet consumers' concerns about whether they are getting a fair deal and to remove any uncertainty in the market.
UK car sales were up by 3.9 per cent in the first quarter of this year compared with 1999. Ford's sales were up by around 6 per cent in the first quarter of this year compared with a year ago, while Rover's declined by a similar amount. However, other factors will have influenced Rover's position, including ageing models and the uncertainty over the company's future. The latest available figures for production for the UK are for 1999 and at 1.79 million are the highest since 1972.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and congratulate him on coming here to answer the Question, taking some of the load off his noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who I see is bowling again today.
Is the Minister satisfied with that Answer? Is it not a simple fact that Rover sales were down by more than one quarter in 1999 and that half of the 50,000 Rover 75s already produced are standing in an enormous car park unsold? Is it not the case that the Government's "Rip-off Britain" campaign encouraged many people to delay buying cars and helped—it was not the sole

1129
factor—to bring about the problems now occurring in Rover and Ford? Do not the Government feel just a tiny bit responsible?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the fact is that in 1999 UK sales were the fourth highest on record. That does not suggest that there was a collapse in the sale of cars in this country. It is strange for me to have to tell Members on the opposite Benches that in a competitive market there are winners and losers and that that is affected by their performance in the market.
We are talking about references to the Competition Commission on the recommendation of the Director-General of Fair Trading. I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that it is the role of government to veto such investigations. If he is suggesting that—and it is what he is implying—the campaign which he describes was initiated by the Director-General of Fair Trading in referring matters to the Competition Commission. Is the noble Lord suggesting that those should be vetoed? If he is, many people will be confirmed in their view that the Conservative Party is not interested in open, free and fair trading, but is interested in price fixing and the exploitation of monopoly positions.
Furthermore, we do not claim authorship of the expression "Rip-off Britain". I believe that it was invented by various newspapers to describe life under the previous administration.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, in favour of openness and fair trading, could the Minister tell the House why the cars imported into this country from very weak euro countries are not being sold a great deal more cheaply?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the whole point of the report of the Competition Commission was that, despite the large number of imported cars, prices here were 10 to 12 per cent higher than those abroad. It rightly concluded that that could imply that there was not a fair, free and open market. That was the judgment of the Competition Commission and it ill behoves other people to query that and argue for price fixing.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if we had joined the euro at its commencement, British car manufacturers would have had no difficulty in greatly increasing their export sales?
Will he further agree that as Rover is able to sell its cars on the continent 30 per cent cheaper than in the UK it would greatly increase its sales in this country if it carried out a similar policy here?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the impact of sterling makes life much more difficult for exporting companies. That goes without saying. However, other factors relate to the performance of Rover and its ability to compete in the market; for instance, dated models and the fact that its productivity is 31 cars per person compared with 106 per person at the Nissan car
1130
plant in Sunderland. That fact is clearly material to the case and relates to the underinvestment at the Longbridge site over many years.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Minister referred to winners and losers among manufacturers in the British car industry. In the event that the Government decide to give financial aid to Rover, as they were intending, would they be putting taxpayers' money into a winner or a loser?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the package was put together to help the situation and to protect jobs, as far as possible, using regional selective assistance. It was an attempt to ensure that we continued to have production on that site in a company which had not performed well but where it was possible to retrieve the situation.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the future of the car industry will depend on investment? Do the Government have a view on the suggestion of a tie-up between Frankfurt and the London Stock Exchange? All most people see us getting out of it is the use of their computer.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, further investment in the British economy and in the car industry depends on many issues. The most important is the state of the British economy, which is why our macro-economic policies are so important. Within that, the issue of the Stock Exchange is important, but not nearly as important as the issue of macro-economic stability.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the Minister pop his mind back to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes? Is it not a fact that when the pound is high exporting is difficult and imports are cheaper? That happens everywhere. Why is it, therefore, what when we have a high pound imported cars are not cheaper?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not want to go into basic economics, but that is exactly what price fixing is about. Of course one would expect to see the price of imported cars falling when the pound is high. The fact that one does not is exactly why one should be deeply worried about the situation.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, before dealing with the Private Notice Question tabled by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, it may be for the convenience of the House if I remind your Lordships of the procedure to be followed for Private Notice Questions. Proceedings follow the rules for Starred Questions. The Companion states that supplementary questions should be short and confined to not more than two points. In addition, the Procedure

1131
Committee recently agreed that proceedings on a Private Notice Question are expected to take not more than 10 minutes.

House of Lords Appointments Commission
3.37 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given private notice; namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will announce the membership of the House of Lords Appointments Commission promised in the Government's paper, Modernising Government: Reforming the House of Lords.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, this morning my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced in a parliamentary Written Answer the decisions on the membership of the commission. My right honourable friend stated:
"Following an open recruitment exercise conducted in accordance with the principles of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, I have decided to appoint the following people, on the recommendation of the selection panel, as the independent chairman and members of the interim House of Lords Appointments Commission.
"The chairman will be Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, the chairman of the Pearson Group and Halifax plc and a Cross-Bench Peer in the House of Lords. The leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have been informed and are content for Lord Stevenson to be appointed as chairman.
"The independent members, chosen from a strong field of candidates, will be Mrs. Angela Sarkis CBE, the chief executive of the Church Urban Fund; Dame Deirdre Hine, previously Chief Medical Officer at the Welsh Office and chairman of the Commission for Health Improvement; and Ms Felicity Huston, chairman of the Northern Ireland Consumer Committee for Electricity and deputy chairman of the General Consumer Council of Northern Ireland.
"In addition, the commission will contain a member nominated by each of the three main political parties. The Labour Party member is the right honourable Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. The Conservative Party member is the right honourable Lord Hurd of Westwell, CH, CBE. The Liberal Democrat member is Lord Dholakia, OBE, DL.
"The seven members of the commission will combine knowledge of the existing House of Lords with a diverse range of personal backgrounds. They will be well qualified to take forward the process of appointing non-political Peers to the House of Lords on a more open and transparent basis and to take on the responsibility for vetting all nominations for peerages".
Biographical details of the members of the commission will be placed in the Library.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having agreed to answer this Question. I still believe that it should have been volunteered as an oral Statement to both Houses of Parliament. However, will she accept that we on this side believe that such a commission should be statutory, set up by Parliament and open to scrutiny by this House? To whom will the commission be accountable and by what criteria will its success or otherwise be judged? Will she state clearly whether it is still government policy, as recommended by the
1132
Wakeham commission, to set up a statutory commission and, if so, when? In future, will this be the only route to nomination of Cross Benchers? Finally, will she say who will fix the number and proportion of Cross-Bench Peers? Will it be the commission or will it be the Prime Minister?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware from the extensive debates we have had on the subject of a statutory versus a non-statutory appointments commission, the Government have appointed this interim commission for the interim House of Lords. They have agreed in principle to accept the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, for a statutory commission for the permanently reformed, long-term arrangements for the House of Lords. This is a very important step in the process of delivering the Prime Minister's promise to give up his sole power of patronage. I would remind your Lordships that no previous Prime Minister has ever taken that step.
I also point out to your Lordships that the diversity of the membership ensures that all new independent Peers will be widely representative of our country. Except in cases of national security, which will be subject to the same vetting procedures as applied to the previous Peerage Scrutiny Committee, the nominations will be passed by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen for appointment. The numbers to be appointed will, as is customary, be agreed by the Prime Minister.
Lord Renton: My Lords, should not Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each be represented on the commission? I did not hear the names of anyone who could be identified in that way.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise if I was somewhat unclear in my references to the individual members of the commission. As I said at the end of the Statement, biographical details of the members will be placed in the Library. However, all three places to which the noble Lord refers are represented. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is a Scot, Ms Huston is a representative from Northern Ireland and Dame Deirdre Hine is from Wales.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister of this Appointments Commission and, in particular, of the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham. I welcome that on three counts: first, because he is a Member of your Lordships' House; secondly, because he is a CrossBencher; and, thirdly, because of his very wide experience in public and commercial life.
I wrote to the Prime Minister on 9th March—the noble Baroness is aware of my letter because I sent her a copy—suggesting that there should be a role for the Convenor in arrangements made with the Appointments Commission, about which we have just heard. I made that suggestion on two counts: first, because the Convenor is well placed to help the

1133
Appointments Commission in identifying career and other experience which would be of value to your Lordships' House; and, secondly, because independents are now becoming a more important element of your Lordships' House. Does she not believe that the Convenor, as the representative of the independents, should be recognised by the Appointments Commission in this way?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for welcoming the Appointments Commission and the people who will serve. As I am sure he will realise, it is open to any Member of your Lordships' House and, indeed, to a much wider group of people beyond the Houses of Parliament to make recommendations. That is one of the significant changes we are hoping to see taken forward by the new commission. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out, is himself a Cross-Bench Peer, will value enormously the advice, both formal and informal, which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, will undoubtedly give him.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the announcement made by the noble Baroness of a commission of real quality and experience. The noble Baroness is right to say that there is a significant concession by the Prime Minister on the question of patronage. As she has made clear, there is a distinction between this commission and that proposed in chapter 13 of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. However, can she undertake to consider carefully that, irrespective of how long it may take to make a major further change in the composition of this House, there is a great deal to be said for extending the remission of patronage by implementing at a very early date, ahead of other changes, chapter 13 of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and to make all the appointments to your Lordships' House the responsibility of an independent commission?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for underlining what I said in my original Answer, which is to lay great stress on the quality of the individuals appointed to this commission. I agree with him that they form a very strong panel. They were chosen from a strong field of candidates, which, in itself, was very encouraging.
On the noble Lord's second point, as I said in my original reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Government accepted in principle that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, on the statutory commission for membership of your Lordships' House should very much form part of the final reform of your Lordships' House, or the next part of the reform. However, the noble Lord will also be aware that I have said on many occasions that the Government do not
1134
believe it appropriate to give a commitment to cherry-pick individual recommendations of the Royal Commission.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, live in Scotland?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lady may have private and personal information on the noble Lord's residence which I do not have. However, I believe that he would be distressed not to be described as a Scot.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness two short questions. First, with regard to future membership of the House of Lords, I believe that she said that new Peers would be drawn from a whole variety of different people. How can she say that when the Appointments Commission, which is responsible for appointing people, is supposed to be totally independent? Secondly, if I heard her correctly, she said that the chairman would be the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, and that the other three people were all ladies. Is that not an example of gross sexism? Is the noble Baroness saying that out of the tremendous field of people who applied, no man was suitable to be chosen?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I suspect that it is a tribute to the quality of those people who applied. I have no doubt that the appointments were made on the absolute and clear understanding of equal opportunities policy, which is always pursued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. With regard to the noble Earl's first point, in making the comments about drawing from a wider group than might customarily be the case in terms of membership of your Lordships' House, I was simply quoting from the terms of reference for the commission.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an undertaking that if the Appointments Commission puts someone forward, the Prime Minister will not veto it?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, my Lords. I said that in my previous reply.

Utilities Bill
3.48 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I shall set out the key objectives and provisions of the Bill in a moment. However, before doing so, I wish to explain briefly the position regarding telecommunications and water.
During consideration of the Bill in another place, the provisions relating to telecommunications and water were removed from the Bill in response to representations from industry. In the case of telecoms, they will be taken forward in the broader context of the

1135
White Paper on reform of communications regulation, which the Department of Trade and Industry will be bringing forward later this year. In the case of water, they will be carried forward in a draft water Bill which the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions intends to publish later this year. In this way, Parliament will be able to consider the proposed changes to the regulatory regime for water, alongside other proposals resulting from the review of competition in that sector.
The Bill that we are considering today remains a substantial and important piece of legislation. It delivers for the energy sector the key proposals to emerge from our review of utility regulation. It has five key objectives, with which I shall deal in turn: first, to secure a fair deal for all consumers, including the disadvantaged; secondly, to facilitate more effective competition in the energy sector, particularly in the generation and supply of electricity; thirdly, to modernise the regulatory framework for the next decade, while building in flexibility to accommodate future developments; fourthly, to ensure that the gas and electricity sectors contribute to environmental objectives; and, fifthly, to provide a more consistent, transparent and predictable regulatory framework.
Before I deal with each of those points in turn, I apologise in advance for the awkward structure of the Bill. The structure arises because the Bill amends two separate Acts, the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989. This means, as will become apparent as I proceed, that two clauses are needed for each change that is made. The good news is that the Bill is about half as long as it looks, because many of the amendments are common to both gas and electricity.
I return to the five main subjects and I deal first with consumers. This Bill contains a package of measures aimed at putting the interests of consumers at the heart of utility regulation. We refer in this respect to all consumers, large and small, business and domestic, including the disadvantaged.
The framework of regulatory duties that we inherited from the previous government put the interests of shareholders first. This Bill puts the balance right. The Bill replaces the individual energy regulator with the gas and electricity markets authority. Clauses 9 and 13 of the Bill give this new regulatory authority a principal objective of protecting the interests of consumers, wherever appropriate, by effective competition.
Competition is the best way of serving consumer interests. But there are areas where it is not yet an effective discipline and areas where, even though effective competition is developing fast, there is still work to be done to ensure minimum standards of service and build consumer confidence.
Provisions in Parts I and III of the Bill establish an independent gas and electricity consumer council and provide it with its functions. This new body replaces the existing Gas Consumers Council and the Electricity Consumers Committees. It will be a powerful consumer champion, operating independently of the regulator. It
1136
will have the job of investigating and seeking to resolve complaints against utility companies, passing on to the authority any matters that raise licence enforcement issues. It will provide a single point of contact for consumers, ending the uncertainty about who consumers should turn to for assistance with a complaint or for information and advice on how to get the best out of competitive markets.
It will work effectively with the authority through a memorandum of understanding and will seek constructive links with local consumer advice bodies, such as trading standards offices and citizens' advice bureaux. The council will have strong rights of access to the information that it needs from the authority and from the utilities in order to carry out its functions effectively. It will have powers to publish information in the consumer interest. Finally, the council is being set up to act as a powerful advocate for consumers, providing advice to regulators, government, companies, and others with an influence on the regulatory system about consumer needs and interests.
An influential consumer council, advising customers and championing their interests, will have an important part to play in eliminating the causes of complaints at source and in driving standards up and prices down. But consumers must also be confident that minimum standards of service will be maintained, even when they switch suppliers. Clauses 58 and 94—and this is an example of the "two clause one subject" to which I referred—fill an important gap in the regulator's powers. They give the authority a power to impose financial penalties for past and continuing breaches of licence conditions, standards of performance and other obligations. It is a reform which is long overdue. It is not good enough that companies can get away with simply promising to do better in the future. For the first time, the authority will have an effective tool for ensuring that companies comply with their obligations. It will be properly equipped to tackle company failures, such as persistent malpractice in doorstep selling tactics.
These are tough new powers and they are meant to be, but companies that play fair with consumers and meet their obligations have nothing to fear. The powers will be used in a transparent way. There will be proper due process, and companies will be able to challenge in the courts both the imposition and the amount of a penalty.
As regards directors' pay, Clauses 60 and 96 include measures to encourage gas and electricity companies to link directors' pay with the achievement of customer service standards. This will be achieved by requiring price-regulated gas and electricity companies to publish the links, if any, between directors' pay and service levels achieved. Regulation will not gain widespread credibility if consumers see directors of monopoly and dominant companies awarding themselves high salaries where service is inadequate. This is more than naming and shaming. There are real incentives for directors to give customer service standards the priority that they deserve. We have already urged the regulator to take into account the levels of consumer service and satisfaction when

1137
setting new price caps. The new powers to impose financial penalties will focus minds still further. Companies will see it as in their interests to link directors' pay with service standards.
We have said consistently that we want to ensure that the economic benefits of competition in gas and electricity are spread fairly among everyone. We have also said that tackling fuel poverty is a high priority for this Government. We take it very seriously. The benefits of competition should be enjoyed by the many, not just the few, not just big business and not just those able to pay by direct debit.
The Government are taking action on a number of fronts to tackle fuel poverty. The Budget, for example, made changes to increase winter fuel allowance and to apply reductions in VAT to home insulation and heating systems. The energy regulator, at the Government's behest, is carrying forward a social action plan to give vulnerable groups more choice and to make it easier for consumers to pay their bills and avoid debt. The Bill, however, makes a significant contribution in its own right to setting a framework for combating fuel poverty and social exclusion.
First, Clauses 9 and 13 of the Bill impose on the authority a duty to take into consideration the interest of low-income consumers alongside other disadvantaged or vulnerable groups. By referring to disadvantaged groups in this way, the Bill does not require the authority to discriminate in their favour, but we are ensuring that the authority must always bear in mind the interests of those groups in exercising its functions.
Secondly, Clauses 10 and 14 place the authority under a duty to have regard to statutory guidance issued by Ministers on their social objectives for the gas and electricity sector. Draft guidance is currently out to consultation.
Thirdly, the new powers in the Bill to set energy efficiency targets will have benefits for the fuel poor. Energy efficiency measures are aimed primarily at environmental objectives but they can have significant benefits for the disadvantaged, if focused on them, by reducing their energy costs and enhancing their comfort and well-being.
Finally, the Bill backs this up by giving Ministers reserved powers, in Clauses 68 and 97, to create schemes which would have the effect of cross-subsidising disadvantaged consumers to reduce the charges that they pay for gas and electricity. The powers might be used, for example, to reduce price differentials between pre-payment meter and frequent cash payment scheme rates, and rates for other consumers who use cheaper payment methods. The power would be used only in the event that other avenues for tackling fuel poverty which are being taken forward by the regulator and the industry fail to deliver a satisfactory outcome. But it does underline our determination to deliver a fair deal for all.
My second main theme is competition. I have said that competition is the best means of serving the interests of consumers. Regulation is sometimes
1138
necessary, but it is second best. The Government's record in driving forward competition in gas and electricity supply speaks for itself.
When we took office, competition in energy was not adequately developed. Indeed there were questions about whether competition in electricity would happen at all. We now have a full roll-out of competition in gas and electricity supply. There are about 210 gas licences and about 160 electricity licences.
Consumers are increasingly taking advantage of the choice that is now available. In October 1998, 16 per cent of domestic gas consumers were supplied by companies other than Centrica. At the end of December 1999 that figure had risen to 27 per cent, or 5.3 million domestic consumers. For electricity, customers have been switching at the rate of about 100,000 a week since last summer. By December, 3.7 million domestic consumers had switched supplier. It is an impressive record, but we can go further.
The Utilities Bill takes important new steps to secure more effective competition in energy markets, particularly in electricity generation and supply. In particular, the current electricity pool is fundamentally flawed. It is a price-setting mechanism, not a market. There is no buyer participation. The result is that market power is in the hands of the generators. The system is not transparent. It distorts the market to the disadvantage of flexible plant, including coal-fired plant. There is inadequate regulatory oversight of the pool's operations. It has had 10 years to address its shortcomings but has failed to do so. Consumers have suffered from unnecessarily high electricity prices for too long.
Clause 67 of the Bill gives the Government powers necessary to implement the new electricity trading arrangements in England and Wales. Under the new arrangements, the current electricity pool will be replaced with a new trading system based on a series of bilateral markets designed to encourage competition and remove current market distortions. It will increase competition and drive down electricity prices. It will remove the distortions present in the pool and level the playing field for generators and suppliers. It involves buyers directly in setting prices; and it will introduce better governance arrangements and proper regulatory oversight.
The new system will complete the reform of the electricity market, allowing the lifting of the stricter consents policy for gas-fired power stations.
The result will be a more competitive market working to the benefit of consumers. We have consistently said that we anticipate that the package of reforms for the electricity sector will result in reductions of 10 per cent or more in wholesale electricity prices. There is strong evidence from the markets that reductions are already being achieved in anticipation of the new arrangements. Forward market prices are down some 20 to 25 per cent in real terms. That is a big prize. The wholesale electricity market for the UK is estimated at £8.5 billion. A

1139
10 per cent reduction means ongoing annual savings for consumers of £850 million. That means lower prices for domestic consumers, and lower input prices for UK business.
The Government intend to exercise the powers so as to enable the new trading arrangements to be brought into effect in the autumn of this year. We are determined to ensure that consumers, domestic and industrial, benefit sooner rather than later from these essential reforms.
Provisions in Part IV of the Bill will also stimulate further and more effective competition and choice in electricity supply. They do that by separating supply, which is competitive, from electricity distribution, which is a monopoly. Separating supply and distribution will facilitate further restructuring of the electricity industry where that is commercially sensible, subject to the normal provisions of competition law. It will also remove the existing distinctions between public electricity suppliers and other suppliers, thereby ensuring a fair market for all electricity supply companies.
This Government have already pushed ahead vigorously with competition in gas and electricity supply. We are taking further steps, through the Bill, to introduce effective competition into the wholesale electricity market. In addition, we introduced a Competition Bill into this Government's first parliamentary Session, following years during which the Opposition talked about the reform of competition but did nothing about it. The powers in the Competition Act came into force on 1st March this year. From that date, the energy regulator and the other regulators took on strong new powers to tackle anti-competitive behaviour in their sectors.
My third main theme is the regulatory framework which is part of the Government's programme of reform and modernisation. The privatisation of British Gas took place 14 years ago; electricity 11 years ago. The existing Gas and Electricity Acts need to be modernised to take account of market developments such as increasing competition, the dramatic increase in the number of licensees, and the convergence of gas and electricity markets.
Having brought regulation up to date, we must ensure that it is flexible enough to accommodate and encourage future market development while not compromising regulatory certainty and predictability. The Bill provides for the alignment of the regulatory systems for gas and electricity under a single regulatory authority—the gas and electricity markets authority—recognising that energy markets have converged.
Clauses 34 and 81 streamline the process of modifying gas and electricity licences so that the authority no longer needs the individual consent of all licensees to a change to standard licence conditions. It will be able to proceed if it secures the consent of a significant majority. With hundreds of licensees, collective licence modification procedures are vital to allow the regulator to deal effectively with necessary licence changes, and to adapt to changes in the market.
1140
My fourth theme is environmental provisions. This Bill is primarily about economic regulation but, at the start of this century, we cannot ignore environmental concerns. The energy utilities have a big impact on the environment. So they have a big part to play in the achievement of our environmental objectives— particularly those for energy efficiency and the control of greenhouse gases.
The Bill contains provisions to ensure that the energy sector contributes to those objectives. It puts an end to the confusion we inherited from the previous government about the respective responsibilities of Ministers and regulators for environmental matters.
Clauses 61 to 66 give Ministers powers to set obligations on electricity supply companies for the supply of electricity from renewable sources. The Government will use those powers to meet our target of 10 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2010, subject to the cost to consumers being acceptable.
Clauses 69 and 98 provide powers for Ministers to impose obligations on gas and electricity companies to achieve specified energy savings targets—targets which are to be achieved through activities to improve efficiency in the use of energy by consumers. On 9th March, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions launched consultation on the use of those powers. He is proposing an obligation which would result in savings of about 750,000 tonnes of carbon a year.
Clauses 10 and 14 place the authority under a duty to consider statutory guidance issued by Ministers on environmental objectives relevant to the gas and electricity sectors.
These are important provisions. Guidance will ensure that the authority is alert to the Government's environmental objectives, thereby ensuring that regulation makes a proper contribution to the attainment of those objectives. At the same time, they maintain the principle that the authority operates at arm's length from government on matters of economic regulation.
My fifth and final theme is consistent, predictable and transparent regulation. Our extensive consultation revealed that we can do much to build confidence and stability into regulation through a more predictable, consistent and transparent regulatory framework. Improving regulatory procedures does not catch the eye, but it is vital in securing better decisions, more widely accepted decisions, and regulatory stability over time.
Our willingness to engage in improving regulatory procedures has been welcomed by consumers and companies alike. The Bill requires the authority to publish and consult on its forward work programme, and give reasons for key decisions.
Clauses 38 and 82 strengthen the position of the Competition Commission as an effective appeals body when disputed licence conditions are referred to it by

1141
the authority. In that way, companies will have greater certainty that the commission's findings will be properly implemented.
The rapid development of competitive energy markets has made the task of regulating those sectors increasingly complex. The interests of hundreds of licensees have to be considered and balanced. Decisions in that context are best undertaken by a regulatory authority. Therefore, Clause 1 of the Bill will replace the individual energy regulator with a regulatory authority, the gas and electricity markets authority, to which I have referred. Regulatory decisions will no longer be the responsibility of one individual. They will be less dependent on the personality of a single regulator. The whole process will provide for greater continuity, reducing the jolts every time a new regulator is appointed.
To conclude, the proposals in the Bill have been the subject of wide consultation. They are forward looking, and they are seen by the regulator, consumer groups, regulated companies and others as sensible, balanced and fair. The Bill establishes a modern regulatory framework which is stable, fair to all consumers and in which the respective roles of Ministers and the regulator are clear. It will ensure that the gas and electricity sectors make a contribution commensurate with their importance to the achievement of the Government's environmental objectives.
The Bill provides a framework that will ensure a fair balance between the needs of consumers and the legitimate interests of companies. The Bill will promote high quality services for consumers, exert downward pressure on prices and will promote further and more effective competition in the gas and electricity sectors. It is good for the environment, good for consumers, good for the utilities and good for competition. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this Bill, at least, to what is left of it. This was to be, as the Secretary of State said in another place, a "flagship" Bill,
"part of that agenda of modernisation and reform".—[Official Report,Commons, 31/1/00; col. 782.]
This so-called "modernisation" is proving to be a very risky business. The Secretary of State referred to the "current ramshackle legislation". What we have now is a diminished, disappointing, ramshackle Bill.
However, at least it serves one real purpose: it exposes this Government's dilemma between the desire to try and show that they support business and understand the needs of consumers, with the fact that they cannot bring themselves to accept that competition, unshackled by expensive regulations, together with consumer choice—as opposed to consumer protection—is the best way to serve the customer.
1142
Indeed, the Second Reading of the Bill in another place—when it was a whole Bill—was very enlightening. It confirmed the continuing, deep-seated rift between the New Labour hierarchy and what I call "Real Labour". While the principal objective for the regulators set out in the Bill is,
"to protect the interests of consumers".
Members on the Government Benches in another place exposed their will to respond to this priority by articulating their blanket distrust for the private sector and by lamenting privatisation, with the resultant belief that those operating in the private sector must be penalised and compromised with increased bureaucracy and regulation.
Perhaps in their willingness to serve their leader, the Prime Minister, they had not forgotten his contribution to the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill in 1988. As the then honourable Member for Sedgefield said,
"We are proud that we took the industry into public ownership. When we come to power it will be reinstated as a public service for the people of this country, and will not he run for private profit".—[Official Report,Commons, 12/12/88; col 689.]
In other words, "We will reinstate it as a proper public service under public control".
One of the many issues that the then opposition failed to appreciate was that, following privatisation, and thereby with the development of open competition, the consumer would benefit from real reductions in the cost of utilities as well as an increase in the quality of provision and service.
In fact, since 1989, electricity prices have fallen by 29 per cent in real terms and gas prices have fallen by 29 per cent in real terms. Indeed, I would like to talk about domestic telephone charges, which have plummeted by 50 per cent in real terms, but I presume that now I am not supposed to dwell on that latter success story.
In contrast, the Government's regulatory impact assessment makes it clear that the extra administrative costs of arrangements in the remaining parts of the Utilities Bill will add at least £5 million a year to the cost of regulation. Who will pay for that? At the end of the day, the consumer will pay.
We understand from the Secretary of State (at col. 788 of Commons Hansard)that "extensive and wide-ranging consultation" took place before the Bill was introduced. Yet half of it was dropped and 359 government amendments were tabled during its passage, with scant opportunity for consideration and consultation with the utilities industries. British Gas said of the new clauses,
"They have been brought forward in a piecemeal way and have not been the subject of any"—
I repeat the word "any"—
"consultation".
That extraordinary situation has created enormous uncertainty, both for consumers and providers. In some cases, it has already had the effect of driving down share prices, which reduces the ability of the providers to invest and take a long-term view as capital intensive industries, such as utilities, have to do. As for

1143
the consumer, and with particular regard to those 16 million over the age of 65, we are considering the provision of essential services. So much for the "attainment of social policies", mentioned in Clauses 10(1) and 14(1) of the Bill.
Does the Government's handling of this Bill thus far mean that they are undecided about their policy for energy? Do the Government have a policy for energy? If they do, I, for one, am unaware of their intent. On the one hand, the Government have announced a £100 million lifeline for the coal industry; on the other hand, the announcing of the lifting of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations will provide further competition to the coal sector. What about renewable sources of energy? The most recent research shows that, since they came to power three years ago, the Government have invested less than £10 million in research into renewable energy sources. Are their hearts not in looking to the future? Whatever, their policy, that is far from clear having regard to their actions and the words in the Bill.
At this stage, perhaps I should make it clear that we support some aspects of the Bill. In short, we welcome the merging of the electricity and gas regulators into a new combined Ofgem, particularly since those sources of energy have started to supply each other's products. However, we are concerned that joining the two together should not double the cost of the combined authority. It is rather worrying to learn that three years ago Ofgem's predecessor authorities were spending a total of £29.8 million a year, while Ofgem's budget for 2000–01 is a rather staggering £64.5 million. That means that more costs will be passed on to the consumer.
We also welcome the new combined gas and electricity council. In addition, we support the separation of the licensing of the distribution and supply of electricity, which is something that we would have done to complement the growth in competition, as it further defines and limits the area which remains a natural monopoly. In practice, that move, in due course, should mean a reduction in the regulatory involvement in all those areas which are now competitive. Instead, however, we now have a Bill that will impose more regulation in the mistaken belief that that will benefit the consumer. Again, I refer to Clauses 10(1) and 14(1) which state:
"The Secretary of State shall from time to time issue guidance about the making by the Authority of a contribution towards the attainment of any—
I repeat the word "any"—
"social or environmental policies set out or referred to in the guidance".
The guidance, of course, is very much hidden from view, by which I mean that it is not on the face of the Bill. I interpret that drafting as a completely open ticket for the Government—not an arm's-length, independent regulator—to pick up and run with any social and environmental pursuits into the future and place them, via the authority, at the door of the utilities companies for the latter to accept, develop, fund and implement.
1144
In fact, the Minister spoke about the importance of continuing an arm's-length situation for the regulator on matters of economic regulation, but I argue that most activities will have an economic impact. In principle, that sounds like an excellent idea and one that is kind to the consumer as well as being green. However, in practice we have grave doubts. We have looked at the repercussions of the Water Industry Act 1999, where, for example, so-called "guidance" has already required the banning of disconnections. In that instance, guess which bill is now paid last by the consumer, who knows his or her rights? Those repercussions demonstrate that the word "guidance", in practice, means "prescription".
Some of those environmental and social policies will be good. There is no doubt about that. However, if the private sector is now to be required to carry out the Government's social engineering for them, who will bear the cost in the end? It will be the consumer. Is this kind to the consumer?
A further, glaring issue that we fought hard against in another place and which we shall oppose in your Lordships' House, is the limitless fines that the Bill will enable the authority to impose on the utilities companies. Again, who is the ultimate loser? It will be the consumer. Perhaps I may quote the shadow Secretary of State in another place when she articulated this point with clarity during the debates on Report:
"The consequence will be a huge increase in the level of regulatory risk being faced by the industry. Higher regulatory risk means higher rewards for the provider of capital to the industry to compensate for the increased risk. That in turn translates into higher interest costs, which inevitably end up being passed on to the consumer".—[Official Report,Commons. 19.4.00; col. 1070.]
Can the Minister tell the House if that is really what the Government intend? How can the Government's stated priority—that is, to protect the interests of consumers—be achieved when they quite blatantly intend to increase regulation and government interference? Those moves are bound to destabilise the business climate and, ultimately, penalise the consumer.
The results of privatisation of the gas and electricity industries speak for themselves. The Minister has already said today that they have an impressive record. With the separation of licensing of the distribution and supply of electricity, we would have continued to see more competition, improved quality of service to the customer, and savings to the customer as a result of that competition.
In conclusion, perhaps there is some truth in what the then honourable Member for Sedgefield said back in 1988 during the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill when he talked about reinstating a public service under public control. It is for these Benches to remind us all—"us", the consumers—that the greatest loser under public control—the control of the Government—was the public.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to declare a long and continuing interest in the energy sector which, at

1145
various stages, has covered coal, oil, gas, electricity, renewables and CHP. I cannot think of any others for the moment.
We on these Benches welcome the main thrust of the Bill and its principal provisions. In particular, we support the emphasis placed on the protection of the interests of consumers, especially those in difficult circumstances. Having actively participated in the debates on the privatisation of gas and electricity in the 1980s, and having closely followed all the changes that have occurred since, I consider that the wide-ranging review, of which this Bill is the outcome, has been appropriate and desirable. I am glad to note that many of the views expressed in the consultation period have been taken into account.
Our attitude to the Bill as it passes through its various stages will be to seek improvement to provisions which we basically support. I should like to start with Clauses 9 and 13, which set out the main objectives. In stating that,
"The principal objective of the Secretary of State and the … Authority in carrying out their respective functions … is to protect the interests of consumers",
it is not made clear that this should be done on a sustainable basis. In view of the considerable importance attached by the Government to the concept of sustainability and their reference to this in the draft social and environmental guidance to the authority, it is surprising that an amendment to this effect should have been rejected in another place. I feel that there is a strong case for coming back to this matter.
As regards the same clause, I am concerned about the lesser importance given to the promotion of efficiency in the use of gas and electricity and to the protection of the public from the dangers arising from the supply of these fuels. I should have thought that both of these vital issues would rank in importance with the other objectives and should not be subsidiary to them.
I support the formation of a single regulatory authority—as does the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe—to cover gas and electricity, in view of the growing inter-relationship between the two markets. Having had the opportunity of meeting Mr Callum McCarthy and his colleagues on a number of occasions, I am impressed with their determination to make a success of the new authority. The authority will of course have close relations with the Government, with the enterprises in the sector and with the new consumers' council. It is important that these interrelationships should be clearly established and I believe that the Bill and supporting documentation go a long way towards doing this.
I have two points to raise. First, in putting so much emphasis on the interests of consumers, the Government may be giving the impression that they are lukewarm about the enterprises. I am sure that that is not so, but it needs to be demonstrated. A particular cause for concern is the power to be given to the authority to impose financial penalties, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred in his opening
1146
remarks. Obviously, some such power is necessary to reinforce the position of the authority. Indeed, it already exists in present legislation in relation to gas. What has raised concern is the fact that there is no limit to the amount of the financial penalties, as is the case in the Competition Act. A cap of some kind seems desirable. This is another matter to which I hope we shall return at later stages.
Secondly, both the authority and the consumers' council are given the right to obtain information from the enterprises. That is clearly desirable, otherwise they could not do their jobs effectively. However, it is important that there should be no duplication. If information is already available to the authority, it should supply it to the consumers' council. A more vexed question arises as to how this information will be used. Like other noble Lords, I have received briefing material from the Consumers' Association on the one hand and the CBI on the other, taking totally different views. The Consumers' Association is concerned that the council might be muzzled by the enterprises when it tries to publish what it considers to be relevant and important information, while the CBI is concerned about the commercial interests of its members. I do not believe that we have yet struck the right balance in the Bill on this issue and I hope that this is another matter to which we shall return.
Like the noble Baroness, I fully support the creation of a combined and independent consumers' council. For years I have been pressing for the consumers' councils in the utilities sector to be given independent status, as was done in the original privatisation Acts only in the case of the Gas Consumers' Council. For that reason I am delighted that this principle has at long last been adopted. Having said that, I hope that the aim of the new council will be, wherever possible, to work with the enterprises rather than against them. Of course there could be instances where an adversarial situation is unavoidable, but I hope that those will be few and far between and that the aim of both the council and the enterprises would be to combine together to serve the best interests of consumers.
I had experience of this when I was in the coal industry. We had a strong Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, but to emphasise the need for close co-operation I was, as marketing director of the NCB at that time, a member of the council and tried to help it perform its task as effectively as possible.
I should like to mention a concern that has come to me about the proposed regional organisation of the council. There is to be a substantial reduction from the present spread of regional councils. While some degree of rationalisation is obviously desirable, in view of gas and electricity coming together, there is none the less a fear that what is now proposed will materially diminish the services which the council could make available to consumers on a regional and local basis. I have received representations from Yorkshire and the south-west on this, and apprehensions in the northeast were mentioned in debates in another place. We shall need to come back to this issue.

1147
It is eminently desirable, as proposed in the consultative documents, that the Government should provide the authority with social and environmental guidance. There have been areas, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, stated, where, under existing legislation, the role of the regulators, particularly in relation to government in many areas, has remained uncertain. That is now clarified.
Under social objectives, the Government place particular importance on dealing with fuel poverty, an objective I fully support. It is estimated that there are still over 4 million households in fuel poverty; that is, where they have to spend more than 10 per cent of their income on energy. The introduction of the new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme will go some way to dealing with this long-lasting problem. But very much more action is required. I am glad that the authority has already issued its Social Action Plan, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred, for dealing with this, and has been encouraged by government to proceed vigorously with it. Have the Government considered what is happening to alleviate this problem abroad? A number of measures have been taken in France in the electricity law of 10th February, including the establishment of a social or reduced price for families in difficulty.
I am also glad to note the general intent of the environmental objectives. But I should like to raise certain issues in that connection. The Government accept the advantages of embedded generation; that is, generation within the local distribution network. They recognise that the main problem is access to the network on fair and transparent terms. That has been a real difficulty for small generators which cannot gain access to the network on a reasonable basis which would enable them to proceed with their business.
I understand that a working party under Ofgem is looking into this. Can we be assured that the Government will have the powers necessary to implement any appropriate recommendations which are likely to emerge after this Bill has been through its various stages? If micro CHP schemes, on which much technical work has been done, for introduction into domestic premises are to be encouraged—it would show considerable savings—net metering, which equates the prices of electricity into and out of the network and is widely practised in the United States and elsewhere, would be necessary, otherwise such projects could not go forward.
A big step forward in the promotion of energy efficiency is the transfer of the energy efficiency standards of performance (EESOP) from the regulator to the Government. The present EESOP goes up to the year 2002. The Government have proposed a further EESOP to cover the period up to 2005, which would put an obligation on gas and electricity suppliers to stimulate their customers to carry out energy-efficiency projects. A target would be set for each supplier. That is an important development and much to be welcomed. I hope that it can be supplemented by
1148
other measures, such as the widening use of energy audits to establish the energy efficiency of individual homes.
The Government have committed themselves to a target of 10 per cent of renewables by the year 2010 compared with a present level of between 2 and 3 per cent. I agree with the noble Baroness that so far progress in that direction has been fairly limited. There is also an intermediate target of 5 per cent to be achieved by 2003. That is an important commitment and it is surprising that the Government resisted an amendment in another place to put it on the face of the Bill. I feel that that is something to which we should return.
I declared at the start of my speech that I had an interest in combined heat and power. For many years I have been an advocate for this process of making use of the heat from power generation which would otherwise be wasted. There is a strong case for dealing with CHP on the same basis as renewable energy. There is also a case for mentioning clean coal technology, which came up at Question Time. The Government have recently committed themselves to providing the coal industry with an important measure of short-term aid, to which the noble Baroness referred. But the long term must be considered as well. If coal is to remain a major source of energy, it must be made more environmentally acceptable. Therefore, stronger support needs to be given to the development of clean coal technology, both for use in this country and, as was mentioned at Question Time earlier today, to be promoted abroad.
The preparations for introducing the new electricity trading arrangements, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred, are now well advanced. The Minister said that he expected those to be introduced in the autumn. Perhaps he can confirm later whether or not that will be so. There is some feeling that the arrangements could take a bit longer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can respond immediately. It is our intention to introduce them in October. That, of course, requires Royal Assent for this Bill by the end of July.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am glad to have that confirmation. But I was going on to say that, if it took a bit longer, I would not regard that as a matter for criticism as it is so important that these arrangements are correctly prepared.
I should be interested to know—perhaps the Minister can also answer this straightaway—what the overall costs of introducing the new system are likely to be, not only for the authority, but also for all the enterprises involved. In the debates in another place, figures of £500 million and even £750 million were mentioned. Those are extremely large sums, no doubt fully justified; but how are they to be recouped?
Furthermore, a specific concern in relation to the new electricity trading arrangements is the way in which the balancing and settlements procedures could act to the disadvantage of smaller operators,

1149
particularly in the CHP and renewable sectors. Those operators could not control and balance their generation in the same way as larger operators and could therefore incur the penalties of oversupply in the balancing market as presently contemplated. Even in advance of NETA, the prices offered for exported electricity from CHP plants have fallen between 20 and 28 per cent below last year's level. In its environmental appraisal of NETA, the DTI said that,
"it is likely to affect adversely the economies of some categories of CHP and other embedded generation".
I know that this issue has been much discussed, but it would be useful to know the Government's latest thinking on the matter, bearing in mind the importance which they attach to renewables and to CHP.
In conclusion, I trust that I have shown that I support the broad intentions as well as the individual proposals contained within this Bill. I have drawn attention to a number of issues which, if they could be dealt with positively, would, in my opinion, enhance the effectiveness of the Bill.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. In the energy industry he has a tremendously wide and longstanding knowledge and interest. He declared a large number of interests at the beginning of his speech; I have but one interest to declare. I am a non-executive member of the management board of Ofgem, which is the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. It was set up last year after the regulatory offices for gas and electricity were merged and Callum McCarthy was appointed regulator for both industries. The management board is intended to be some kind of model for the statutory authority created by Clause 1 of the Bill.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I have long supported the view that it is desirable for utility regulation to be governed by an authority or board of some kind rather than to continue with the one-person regulator model which was established when the privatisation statutes were passed in the 1980s. Experience over many years has shown that, especially in the case of telecommunications and gas where privatisation resulted in the conversion of a public monopoly to a private monopoly, there is a likelihood of undue personality clash and confrontation between, on the one hand, the regulator, and, on the other, the chairman or chief executive of the powerful monopoly, which clearly is not in the public interest. In the case of the gas industry, we had to live for a very long time with the unfortunate decision of the Conservative government in the mid-1980s to privatise British Gas as a single private sector monopoly. According to the most interesting memoirs of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, who was Secretary of State for Energy in the early 1980s, he would have preferred to break up the British Gas Corporation because he judged competition to be a much more important consideration and objective than maximising government revenue. But, as he records, his successors
1150
as Secretary of State for Energy took a different view. He suggests that they were pretty obviously leaned upon by a man—for those who can remember or picture him, it would not have been a very pleasant experience—namely, Sir Denis Rookie, then chairman of British Gas.
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, described Sir Denis as,
"a large, craggy, overbearing man … treating Ministers and officials alike with a mixture of distrust, dislike and contempt … To break up the Corporation in any way was a negation of his life's work".
But, and noble Lords may recall, confrontation and somewhat vitriolic disputation from time to time did go on between the regulator and the utility industries, even when the personalities involved changed. The regulator, supported by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, was determined to seek to bring about a separation of the natural monopoly elements of the energy industry—usually referred to as the "pipes and the wires" and for which no one advocates competition—that required continued regulation and the other elements of the energy industry such as generation, supply, and so on, where competition could be introduced and regulation eased as time went by. I stress the fact that regulation would be eased because, contrary to what has been said in the other place and, to some extent, by the principal Opposition Bench today, regulation is being eased all the time and, most properly, as competition progresses.
In 1997, at the time of the general election, the Labour Party's manifesto said in relation to the utility industries:
"We will promote competition wherever possible. Where competition is not an effective discipline … we will pursue tough effective regulation in the interests of customers".
To my mind, this Bill pursues that in a very straightforward way. It certainly makes regulation more effective; for example, through the statutory confirmation of the merger of the gas and electricity regulatory offices that has taken place, the creation of the gas and electricity markets authority, and the creation of a truly independent and separate consumer council. Very rightly, the Bill puts up front as the principal objective of the Secretary of State and of the authority the protection of the interests of consumers, adding the important wording, which noble Lords will also have noticed in other Bills,
"wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition".
As I see it, the consumer interest objective is not simply the most obvious one of ensuring lower prices, desirable though that may be and desirable though their achievement may have been up until now through competition. Clearly, consumers have an interest in security and continuity of supply, so that continuing adequate investment is also required in the interests of consumers, not just in those of the companies, and so on.
Perhaps I may impertinently remind the Opposition Front Bench that the word "consumers" is defined in the Bill so as to include future consumers as well as present consumers. That clearly puts an emphasis on the need for the regulator to ensure that he does not

1151
concentrate wholly on a narrow focus of immediate reductions in prices but ensures that there is adequate investment.
As we know, competition has already been pursued with considerable vigour so that business consumers and private consumers—at any rate, those who pay by direct debit—are assumed by the regulator to be adequately protected by competition and regulatory price caps are no longer needed. However, with all the enthusiasm and success that competition has had so far, I should like to remind your Lordships that a 70 per cent share of the domestic market is still held by British Gas. It may be thought that it will settle down at about that figure. It is true that consumers throughout the country have choice from rival suppliers, but I quote the retiring chairman of the Gas Consumer Council who said in her recent report that,
"essentially consumers lack confidence in the new market".
Some may ask why they lack confidence. There have been some well-publicised, bad selling practices; there have been problems with changing suppliers; and there have been unauthorised transfers and similar, as the chairman put it, "tales of woe". These have all impacted on consumer opinion, and market share between the rivals may not alter much more until consumer perceptions and greater consumer confidence change and develop.
One also needs to say, as did my noble friend the Minister, that competition alone is insufficient to create—and I use my own words—overall consumer welfare. I emphasise to your Lordships that gas and electricity are not discretionary services that people can choose to take or not take. Moreover, although we would like them to solve as many problems as possible, market forces will not solve them all. The clauses to which my noble friend the Minister referred very properly provide for ministerial guidance to be issued on social and environmental matters. The Bill does specify "guidance", so I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who said that guidance inevitably means prescription. It does not; the words are different. As a member of the management board of the energy authority, I regard them as different.
The Bill also provides that the Secretary of State, the authority and the consumer council must have particular regard to the interests of the disadvantaged consumer. I suppose that is one of the reasons why I said that market forces are not entirely sufficient in this respect. If you do not give special consideration to the disadvantaged consumer and you price solely and only according to cost, then, inevitably, those who pay frequently—for example, the poor who want methods of payment whereby they can pay regularly by cash—will be faced with a more costly exercise. They will have to pay more. I hope noble Lords agree that it is good to see that standing charges are being removed. They can impact harshly on small users, such as a single old-age pensioner living alone. Surely we do not want too large a differential between the price paid by customers using direct debit and others using, let us say, pre-payment meters.
1152
As my noble friend the Minister indicated, Ofgem has produced a comprehensive social action plan. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that there are a number of practical proposals in it to combat fuel poverty and social exclusion. Whether or not noble Lords agree with all of them, I am sure they will agree with many of them. They include easier access to payment facilities for those who want to pay frequently in cash; energy saving schemes of various kinds; and improved access to the competitive market for customers who are in debt and to whom market forces may not easily have regard.
In the future there will be a more powerful deterrent against misselling and other malpractices through the possibility of financial penalties being imposed by the authority. The gas consumer council already had that power, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned, but it has now been broadened and is of a more general nature. I have difficulty with the restriction that is imposed in the Bill which states that the authority may not impose a penalty unless notice relating to it is served within 12 months of the contravention or failure to which it relates. That may leave insufficient time for investigation of the alleged malpractice. It may also leave insufficient time for the authority to decide whether to use its powers under the Bill, or its powers under the Competition Act 1998. It would be unfortunate for the period to be left as short as 12 months.
I say to the Opposition Front Bench that the Bill gives the licensee a lot of protection with regard to the clauses on penalties. The clauses not only require any penalty to be of such amount,
"as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case".
The authority must publish a statement of policy to which it must have regard, and there is a right to go to the courts on what may be called "judicial review grounds". However—this is one of the points on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—there is no general right of appeal to the courts on the merits and, unlike the Competition Act 1998, no limits are set out in the Bill. I am not sure that that is satisfactory. As my noble friend the Minister is aware, a number of Bills are before the House at the moment and the Competition Act was recently enacted. The House is entitled to ask why there are discrepancies as regards the matters we are discussing as between one Bill and another.
Although the Bill does not explicitly say so, I believe that the consumer council is to have an advocacy role. This is not stated in so many words but at Second Reading of the Bill in another place Mrs Helen Liddell stated that that is its key role. She used the phrase,
"partisan on behalf of consumers".—[Official Report,Commons, 31/1/00; col. 873.]
I have no objection whatever to that, but if that is the case I wonder about the appropriateness of the council also acting as arbiter of consumer complaints as between the consumer on the one hand and the company on the other. Why is there no ombudsman scheme? At this very moment my noble friend the Minister is piloting the Financial Services and Markets

1153
Bill through the House which promotes, justifiably, the most powerful ombudsman scheme in the country as regards that area of regulation. Why has it not been thought of in regard to the matter we are discussing? I commend the Bill but I look forward to detailed discussion in Committee on a number of issues.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I enjoyed his excursion into the initial steps that were taken in this country to set up regulatory mechanisms.
One must remember that it is less than 17 years since I introduced the White Paper which foreshadowed the privatisation of the telecoms industry. My studies on that occasion convinced me that to follow the model of the federal authorities in the United States would have been a grave mistake. At that stage we believed that it was absolutely right to establish a highly authoritative, prestigious and respected individual to take on the function of regulator. That step was so successful that it has been imitated in many other countries. Naturally enough, it was adopted for the energy industries. However, as the process matures, it is probably right now to consider a more corporate approach to regulation. I do not in any way object to the proposals in the Bill both for merging the two regulatory bodies—which in practice has happened already--and for them to be in the form of a body rather than an individual.
However, what is striking looking back over 17 years is the total and utter transformation that has overtaken the Labour Party in that time. Every single one of the Bills we are discussing was opposed root and branch by the party opposite. The Telecommunications Bill was filibustered for months by the then opposition in another place. We were told that the Electricity Bill and the Gas Bill were bound to put up prices. My noble friend on the Front Bench has described what actually happened. Now noble Lords opposite, such as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, argue passionately the benefits of competition. One can only welcome that conversion.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, addressed a number of the criticisms made of past legislation in this area. This country pioneered the privatisation of major public utilities. The telecoms privatisation was the first of its kind in the world. I am sometimes asked what I think about that. I hope that it may earn me a footnote in history! That privatisation has been imitated all over the world. When one considers the transformation that has taken place as regards the quality of service, the range of choice, the prices that are paid, and the huge diversity of provision that now exists in the telecoms industry—it has grown at an almost exponential rate—can anyone believe that that would have occurred under public ownership? One has only to make the comparison with what is happening in Germany to appreciate what privatisation of the British telecoms industry has achieved. I am sorry that we are not addressing the telecoms industry. It has been excluded from the Bill. But its progress constitutes an exciting story. However, even with the
1154
benefits that privatisation brings in terms of price reductions and choice, it takes time for people to get used to having a choice of gas and electricity suppliers. Nevertheless the picture is now a vast improvement on the position before privatisation.
There are two areas of the Bill which think will require amendment in Committee. They concern electricity and gas respectively. The electricity point relates to the proposed arrangements that are to replace the non-fossil fuel obligation. I was not a member of the Select Committee inquiry into non-food crops chaired by my noble friend Lady Hogg. However, I warmly supported its recommendations. Indeed, I was a member of the Select Committee that endorsed those recommendations. We supported the recommendations on the use of renewable fuels—our report discussed at length short-term coppicing—for the purpose of generating energy. The use of waste to generate energy is already making a small but growing contribution. There is considerable potential in the use of biomass although that is not, strictly speaking, a non-food crop. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, in his place because I believe that he too is a supporter. The main thrust of the report was that these, as it were, industrial crops require a champion in Whitehall. We made a very strong recommendation that the Minister for Science—I am a little surprised not to see him on the Front Bench for this Bill—should have been appointed chairman of a committee to bring together the various interests. For whatever reason, the Government rejected that recommendation. The result is that we have a policy with responsibility still divided among the Ministry of Agriculture, the Department for Trade and Industry and other departments. We published a supplementary report quite recently criticising the Government's failure to accept what seemed to us a very sensible, indeed overdue, recommendation.
So we now have a proposed energy crop scheme to be introduced by the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food. It is being treated simply as an extension of farming. Perhaps for that reason, this recently announced scheme seems to bear absolutely no relation whatever to what is contained in this Bill. I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to deal with my question in his reply. Can he explain how that scheme, which is concerned with energy, is going to fit in with the provisions for renewables in the Bill? It seems to me a classic example of what the Select Committee was aiming at; namely, to have—using the phrase favoured by the party opposite—joined-up government. There is absolutely no sign here of joining up what has been introduced by MAFF and the arrangements made in the Bill to replace the NFFO.
The criticism of the new arrangements is that the Bill sets out proposals for an obligation on suppliers to source part of their electricity production from renewable resources, but it is not technology-specific. It is proposed that the price be capped by means of a buy-back procedure enabling suppliers who are unable to meet their supply requirements in he market to pay the Government to relieve them of the proposed obligation.

1155
I have been told that under these circumstances there will be no incentive for renewable developers to engage in the risks of research and development. As the report of my noble friend Lady Hogg made clear, there is still need for a great deal of R&D if we are to realise the potential. There is no incentive for the developers to engage in the risks which are also more expensive than the cheapest renewable resource. Allied to that is the lack of a guaranteed long term supply contract which must be at the heart of any policy of trying to achieve the substitution of renewables for traditional sources of energy. This means that where developers, for instance, are willing to attempt biomass power station development, they will find it extraordinarily difficult to raise the funds in the market to finance it. That is an example of where there appears to be a change which has not been properly thought through. One wonders how it is going to work.
It would be very expensive in Exchequer terms, and it is unlikely to fill the funding gap. I understand that the DTI proposes that there should be a grants regime to help, but that is not in the Bill. My Lords, that is not the way to do it. What is needed is a system which requires electricity suppliers to source a specified proportion of renewables, for instance, from biomass at a fixed price on long term contracts. That is the condition which will produce the most rapid and effective introduction of this much needed technology.
The costs would then form part of the costs of supplying electricity. That is as it should be. It should not fall onto the taxpayer through a grants system. I give the Government notice that I hope to move amendments to Clauses 61 and 62 in order to go into the issue rather more deeply in Committee.
My point concerning gas is quite different. It is the indirect effect of the downstream regulation on some of the upstream suppliers, notably the offshore oil and gas industry. The remit of Ofgem—as people are still calling it although no doubt we shall get round to calling it the gas and electricity markets authority, GEMA, or whatever—does not extend offshore with the minor exception of Clause 100 concerning gas quality. As Callum McCarthy has said, his jurisdiction stops on the beach. The offshore oil and gas industry is regulated separately by the DTI. As I said, in industrial parlance, the Bill relates to downstream matters and yet if it is not amended there is a risk that it will do considerable damage to the upstream industry.
I make it absolutely clear that the offshore industry is very keen to see the Bill enacted. The very simple reason is that it supports the new electricity trading arrangements. It will allow the Secretary of State to rescind the stricter consents policy on gas fired power stations. It is no secret that that misguided decision by the Government has had a quite damaging effect on the offshore industry and offshore gas field development. There is no doubt that bringing that to an end will be widely welcomed.
I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that this matter is something that can be allowed to drift on. We have to introduce the new arrangements
1156
in the autumn. I hope that we shall see this Bill on the statute book by July because there is no doubt that the sooner we can lift the stricter consents policy the better.
Where does this take us as regards regulation? Perhaps the House will bear with me for a moment while I give a specific example of where things have gone wrong recently. I shall go into detail in Committee. The Minister will be aware of the ending of the pool system for electricity, which has been welcomed on all sides. There was also a system for gas. However, that is a little more flexible because it can be stored in modest quantities. The old Ofgas engaged in consultation as to how best to balance the needs of suppliers and consumers. Quite obviously, the key issue is achieving capacity in the distribution network. After one or two false starts, a system of auctions was introduced. The offshore oil and gas industry criticised that pretty fiercely, but sadly it was not listened to. Such a method, the industry said, was bound to increase prices, and that is precisely what happened in successive auctions. The first was held in September 1999 for capacity in October. The prices increased. The auction system was amended. The March auction in the following year saw further significant price increases. The result is that the weighted average cost of entry capacity at St. Fergus, which is one of the very big landing stations, increased from 0.95p per therm in September 1999 to 2.75p per therm in March 2000. Under the old regime, prior to the auctions, the price was two-thirds of that per therm at 0.665p.
What is feared is that the same kind of thing will happen—I share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—as regards giving primacy to immediate consumer interests. If GEMA looks for short-term benefits to consumers it could impact damagingly on the long-term supply of gas from the offshore oil and gas producers. That is exactly what happened with that system of auctions, and the industry is genuinely concerned that it will happen again. The result will be that a Bill which is intended to protect consumers will, in the end, make them worse off.
What is the answer? We need to have an effective cost-benefit analysis of any regulatory step that will impact on the upstream suppliers. The Minister referred to the need for transparency. He is right. Transparency is necessary, and this is one of the ways we can achieve it. Transparency was argued for in another place—it gained support from some government Back Benchers in Standing Committee—but so far the Government have not listened to the argument. Yes, they have consulted widely— they have been told precisely what are the dangers—but they have not done anything about it. We in this House have a duty now to pursue the issue and to ensure that, under the new gas trading arrangements, Ofgem is obliged to submit a full cost-compliance analysis of any of its proposals.
I support the main thrust of both NETA and NGTA, but the Government's objectives are not likely to be met unless they are prepared to accept amendments to the Bill to remove the difficulties to which I have drawn attention.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, always makes an enjoyable speech. However, I think that, on reflection, he may feel that his entertainingly provocative remarks at the outset rather carried him away.
What impresses me about the Bill is that it reasserts some of the principles which we on this side of the House have always been about in our political lives. It reasserts the principle that we are looking not only at the efficiency of industries for their own sake—be they public utilities or not—but at the contribution they make to the well-being and quality of society as a whole. The Bill reasserts the importance of balancing the responsibility to shareholders—which is a very real responsibility—with the responsibility to consumers, not least the most vulnerable members of our society. At a time when many people in Britain have become sickened by a prevailing culture of greed, the Bill reasserts the principles of responsibility in leadership and administration by emphasising the importance of the links between directors' remuneration and the standards of the electricity service provided.
I cannot help recalling a discussion I had not long ago with an industrial chaplain whose responsibilities included one of the largest power stations in the country. He was not a particularly political man in party political terms. He remarked that one of the things which had always struck him was that in the old days of the publicly-owned electricity industry, whatever the difficulties (and he did not underestimate the difficulties), and whatever the bloody-mindedness (and he did not underestimate the bloody-mindedness that existed at times), there was a feeling that, at the end of the day, it was about Mrs Jones, Mr Brown and the people down the road getting their electricity. It was not primarily about producing a profit for the firm as an end in itself.
I believe that the Bill addresses that issue. I am glad to see that the Government are addressing it and I congratulate them on that. Potentially, the Bill can make a significant contribution to the morale of those working within the public utilities; to the whole industrial culture of our society; and to the rehabilitation of the concept of public service, whether provided within the public or the private sector.
The Minister referred to the environmental elements in the Bill. I should declare an interest because, in a voluntary capacity, I am a vice-president of the Council for National Parks and I serve on the north-west regional committee of the National Trust, as well as being a member, in an individual capacity, of various environmental groups.
In Clauses 10 and 14 of the Bill there are references to environmental responsibilities and to the guidance which should be given in this respect. In Clause 61, for example, there is a firm reference—the Minister underlined it--to energy from renewable resources. But when we look at the Bill and consider these different elements, there are potential contradictions which need to be taken seriously. If, for example, in endeavouring to fulfil the obligations spelt out in
1158
regard to the provision of energy from renewable resources, there was a rush for and an ill-considered increase in the number of onshore wind-power systems, that may well represent a totally unacceptable pressure on important landscapes, including the national parks.
It is interesting to note that already it is envisaged that there may be proposed as many as nine significant major wind-power developments on the edge of the Lake District National Park, where I live. Such developments would also have severe implications, in some instances, for the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
When the Bill is considered, I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the case for making it an explicit responsibility of the Secretary of State to take fully into account the national parks and other similar concerns when drawing up and making the renewables order. This would not only help to protect the landscape but would surely benefit those seeking to develop renewable energy; it would give greater certainty and clarity to the decision-making process; and it would ensure that projects—into which, necessarily, a lot of work had been put—were likely to succeed. They would have been assessed environmentally at an early stage of the process and would therefore be less liable to negation on planning grounds. This would positively assist the Government in reaching their renewable energy commitments.
There are a number of sources of renewable energy—small-scale hydro-electrical power, for example. It would surely be sensible to place an obligation on the Government to consult local communities and relevant interests in areas of high landscape quality—such as areas of outstanding national beauty and national parks—to ensure that only the most appropriate schemes are considered.
A word now about the regulatory authority. Under the Bill, the primary duty of the regulatory authority, like that of the Secretary of State, is to protect consumer interests. This is obviously altogether good. However, there is room for some debate on exactly what are consumer interests. Many of us would argue that in a highly stressful and pressurised society, the interests of consumers very much include space for recreation and enjoyment, and the qualitative, scenic and aesthetic value of the countryside. It is disturbing, therefore, that there is no specific reference i n the Bill to environmental protection or to landscape and amenity issues as a significant duty of the regulatory authority.
It is true that the regulatory authority is required to have regard to any environmental guidance issued by the Secretary of State but, as I understand it, there is no obligation to respect that advice if the authority believes that it goes against the primary duty to protect consumers in a more immediate, limited, short-term economic way. I hope that the Government will be prepared to give the authority specific responsibilities in this respect and to lay down that where the authority takes action in this regard, there will be a duty on the Treasury, if necessary, to support what is required.

1159
That could make a huge contribution to environmental protection and enhancement by, for example, leading to more overhead cables being place underground.
Similarly, the gas and electricity consumer council should—I hope that the Minister will agree with me—have a statutory responsibility to report on the wider environmental performance of utilities and not just, as at present stipulated, on the fulfilment of energy efficiency obligations.
In this context, it is important to note that it has been the practice of the regulator to make calculations on a comparative cost basis. This inevitably means that standards are set by places like East Anglia, where costs are less and where, usually, straight lines can be planned through good soil across flat ground. This, of course, puts operators in less favourable terrain at a considerable disadvantage. The financial constraints on them can be considerable. Consequently, they can see themselves having no alternative but to put in overhead cables where environmental and aesthetic considerations make underground cables the obvious requirement. This works against the highly commendable aspects of government policy which aspire to precisely such wider environmental concerns. The Bill needs to be tested by how far it makes the utilities instruments for delivering wider policy in this respect rather than instead undermining the Government's expressed intentions, not least for the national parks.
If as a society we want a decent environment, to be enjoyed by all, we have to pay for it and the costs should be fairly distributed across the nation as a whole. Hence, the importance of my reference to the role of the Treasury. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that these points are taken seriously by the Government and that he will introduce amendments to respond to them, thereby still further enhancing an otherwise sensible and encouraging piece of legislation.
I should like to finish as I started. I find the Bill exciting not only because it is practical and sensible but also because it reasserts the sense of responsibility at the heart of our industrial affairs.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for proposing the Bill so clearly. I welcome the setting up of a single regulatory body and a combined and independent consumer council, and the opportunity to consider additional social help for those in greatest need who carry the greatest burden of cost because, unfortunately, they cannot pay upfront through direct debits. Furthermore, I share the concern expressed by other noble Lords about the extra regulatory burdens that may be carried by industry and, with them, the extra costs. We shall come to those points in Committee.
My interest in the Bill is mainly related to the proposed obligation for suppliers of electricity to source a proportion of their production from
1160
renewable materials. My noble friend Lord Jenkin rightly stressed what he saw as the lack of investment in R&D. I believe that there may be a need for some pump priming in this area. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point when he replies. A committee, ably led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, looked into the issue of renewable energy and came up with a number of recommendations on non-food crops. It recommended that a Minister of Science should promote those products, a point mentioned by my noble friend Lady Buscombe.
The use of waste, especially in incineration plants like that of Tyseley, is both impressive and a hopeful indication of one way of coping productively with what may be the major problem of this century. Hydro-power has always been awe-inspiring if only because the surrounding scenery is wonderful and the conversion plants are so massive. Wind power, to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred, both onshore and offshore, is perhaps a mixed blessing, but given time and more research I am sure that it will contribute greatly to sustainable power generation. I smiled a little when the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that he welcomed wind power but "not in my back yard". Many of us would take that view. I realise that national parks and AONBs have their place, but they have their responsibilities too.
My overwhelming concern, however, is with the use of non-food crops. At this point I should perhaps declare an family farming interest, which seems out of context in this debate but because of certain provisions of the Bill is not. Things seem to have gone quiet recently in the area of willow chip power generation. I suspect that I shall be asking the Minister for information on progress, or lack of it, any time now. That is for the future. Today I should like to ask about the intentions that lie behind the words in Clauses 61 to 66, to which other noble Lords have referred.
Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will have powers progressively to increase the proportion of power to be generated by each supplier from renewable sources, whether in the form of an annual uprating or a periodic hike? Will he indicate whether the Government are minded to publish their proposals in the form of long-term plans to enable the producers of each renewable source to undertake necessary preparations to meet the demand? It is obviously a long-term project.
I am also concerned at the inclusion of Clause 64, which frankly I do not understand, even with the help of the Explanatory Notes. It seems to indicate that any electricity supplier which does not supply the requisite level of output generated from renewable sources can pay a sort of on-the-spot fine that will then be distributed by the authority among the electricity suppliers. Presumably the one fined will not be eligible to partake in the share-out of his own penalty, but it does not say that he cannot benefit from fines paid by other suppliers who commit the same misdemeanour.

1161
Clauses 58 and 94 specify that financial penalties for breaking the licence conditions shall be paid to the Consolidated Fund. Would it not be more consistent for such penalties to be paid to the electricity suppliers, as in Clause 64?
I should like to suggest that there should not be a get-out from the obligation to use renewable sources, but that if there is shown to be good and sufficient reason for this escape route, the fines should be punitive and devoted in their entirety to research into the production and pre-treatment of renewables and into cleaner methods of power production from fossil fuels.
I am concerned also at the implication, in Clause 28, that exemptions to the licensing requirements may give rise to an overburden of bureaucracy for those people who rent out accommodation in rooms or flatlets and have their own power meters controlling the supply. Would it not be preferable to allow electricity and gas to be supplied without a licence up to a specified amount each year by any one supplier? That would eliminate the need to have a system for granting exemptions to, for example, the thousands of people who let out two rooms as bedsits. I apologise if my questions to the Minister are a little specific, but they relate to an important, albeit small, part of the Bill.
We should also like to now how much money has been allocated already under regional development regulation grants to those who produce non-food crops.
I agree with the comments of other speakers regarding the extra regulatory burdens and look forward to debating the matter in greater detail in Committee.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for his exposition of the Bill. He rather depressed me as far as the end of his third theme. He seemed to be concentrating very much on monetary saving and lowering the cost of energy. I do not believe that to be a major consideration, or that it is necessarily to be welcomed. In the interests of defeating global warming, the costs of energy probably have to be kept up. They must include the costs of global warming, and that will raise energy prices enormously.
The question of the poor, which no one who knows my record in this House will think that I underrate, is to he dealt with in different ways: by t he redistribution of wealth, which no one has appeared prepared to tackle, and by individual arrangements suggested in the Bill and in relation to its provisions. I am on the side of that approach. The matter is not to be dealt with by merely reducing the price of something that already costs the whole world a great deal.
I agree almost entirely with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I share the vice-presidency of the Council of National Parks and I have read its briefing, although I do not necessarily agree with all of it. For instance, I have a slight weakness for wind generators and have crossed swords with the right reverend
1162
Prelate the Bishop of Worcester on the matter. I hope that we shall hear from the right reverend Prelate in Committee. I am aware of the necessity of sorting the matter out, so that it is seen to be taken into account. It is important that everyone who has a case to argue is given the chance to do so.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, we need to discuss consumers, not as spenders of money but as enjoyers of wealth—people being given satisfaction in regard to the environment in which they live and the knowledge that the environment as a whole, in terms of global warming, is being cared for by their government.
If we take these matters into account, there will be a large number of amendments for debate in Committee. I very much look forward to the Committee stage, which I believe will be very worth while. I hope that the Government are prepared to meet people such as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and myself on the matters that we shall be putting forward. I suspect that I shall find myself in the same Lobby as the noble Lord, and I am sure that I shall not find myself in the same Lobby as the Conservative Front Bench, who seem to make the mistake of concentrating almost entirely on the monetary values involved in the Bill rather than social and environmental values. Those are important. They are the business of the Government. I pay tribute to the Government to the extent that they have already included those concerns in the Bill's content, and to the extent that that has attracted an attack by the Conservative Party. That can be nothing but a badge of honour. I hope that they will see their way to producing more in the forthcoming stages.
I commend the Bill. It is an enormous step forward. However, there are improvements to be made.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Buscombe has so eloquently and movingly said, it is a great disappointment that the Government removed the telecommunications and water provisions from the Bill during its Committee stage in another place. I disagree with the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that my noble friend spoke only of money.
Water now rates its own Bill—so disadvantaged water consumers will just have to wait. A White Paper on communications regulations might eventually result in an "Ofcom" and a consumer council to mirror it—so telecommunications consumers too will just have to wait. I find that very disappointing.
So what have we? I am looking forward to the promised and heralded shift in the balance of regulation in favour of consumers of energy. I am looking also for a more accountable, open and consistent approach to utility regulation across the board, combined with effective and independent consumer representation. I and the many consumer representatives across the country will judge the Bill on whether it lives up to these criteria.

1163
We are talking here of essential services. The United States has right-to-know legislation, over and above the Freedom of Information Act, which recognises how essential and life-supporting the utilities are, and how powerless and lacking in effective choice the domestic consumer often is, especially the poor and disadvantaged consumer. On this point, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I have long argued, as I did during my time as chairman of the National Consumer Council, and as does David Hatch, its present chairman, for the establishment of independent consumer councils across the utilities, and that they should be independent and strong advocates of the interests of domestic consumers in their particular sector. The effectiveness of the legislation that is before the House will depend on some of the Bill's detailed provisions. Perhaps I may outline four key areas of concern to consumers.
As well as operating transparently and openly, the gas and electricity consumer council (GECC) should have a research capacity to enable it to speak authoritatively about consumers' experiences and the activities of the regulated companies. I welcome the Government's amendment in the Commons to require the GECC's work to focus on the needs of disadvantaged consumers under the provisions of Clause 17.
The ability of consumer councils to gain access to company information and to disclose and publish information will be crucial in enabling them to carry out their job effectively, independently and authoritatively, and to gain the confidence and respect of consumers. There are concerns about the provisions relating to GECC's access to company information and the disclosure test for the publication of information.
Secondly, I believe that GECC's power to publish information is crucial to its role in protecting consumers. I am concerned that the criteria set out to enable it to decide whether to publish (Clause 19(3) and (4)) may be too restrictive in certain circumstances. GECC will be able to publish information only if it satisfies one or more of three criteria: that the individual body or concern has consented to the disclosure; that the information is available to the public from some other source; or if, in the opinion of the council, the publication of the information does not,
"seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of the individual or body".
The GECC must also consult the body concerned and have regard to any opinion expressed by the authority about the publication of information. I am concerned that there may be cases in which the GECC wishes to publish information to protect consumers but it may be seen to affect "seriously and prejudicially" the interests of the energy provider. Currently, the Bill does not allow the GECC to publish
1164
information which is in the interest of the consumer but which might,
"seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of",
the company concerned. I believe that that is an omission and that the GECC should be able to take account of the public, or even consumer, interest in deciding whether to publish such information. Other bodies such as the Food Standards Agency have a duty to consider the public interest when deciding whether to publish information.
Thirdly, I am concerned that the GECC will be able to access such information only via the regulator. I welcome the provision in the Bill to give it direct access, but I am concerned about the provision which enables the GECC to refer to the regulator refusals by companies to provide information. I do not believe that the regulator is the appropriate authority to deal with it, given that part of the consumer council's role is to scrutinise the decisions of the regulator. Therefore, there is a potential conflict of interest in arbitrating on such information requests. The National Consumer Council believes that the most suitable authority is the information commissioner—that position is established under the Freedom of Information Bill—and I support that suggestion.
Fourthly, third party rights to challenge the competition decisions of the Office of Fair Trading were given to consumer bodies under the Competition Act 1998. Given that the legislation gives utility regulators concurrent powers with the OFT on competition matters, it is open to the consumer council and other consumer bodies to challenge the regulator's competition decisions. However, this Bill does not give third parties the right to challenge the regulator's other decisions and I believe that it is, therefore, inconsistent. The Bill imposes a bias in favour of the companies over the consumer, as they will be able to challenge the decisions of the regulator on both competition and non-competition issues, and I believe that that is a further inconsistency. For the sake of consistency and to reflect the shift in emphasis of the regulatory systems in favour of consumers, as we are told the Bill seeks to do, the GECC and all consumer bodies should have that right.
Finally, the businesswoman in me always hopes for a free and active market that competes for every kind of customer. However, for the present I believe that in the case of essential life-supporting services which are still moving out of their old monopolies—sometimes into new ones, sadly—some kind of intervention in the market remains essential. I look forward to following through these points at Committee stage.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Borrie, I start by declaring an interest as a non-executive member of the Ofgem management board, a special adviser to Ofgem and the DTI on the reform of electricity trading arrangements, and director of the Solar Energy Group.
I greatly welcome this Bill. It provides a much sounder basis for the joint regulation of the electricity and gas sectors, and an appropriate focus on

1165
consumers, both present and future. The Bill will also greatly enhance competition. Contrary to some of the voices on the Benches opposite, I believe that the Bill will allow regulation itself to bring down the weight of regulation. The Bill also gives due weight to social and environmental concerns and clears the way for the long overdue reform of wholesale electricity trading arrangements.
I should like to comment briefly on the withdrawal of telecommunications and water from the Bill. Contrary to the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I do not believe that the result is a ramshackle Bill; on the contrary, we now have a much more coherent measure. The case for dropping telecommunications and water in view of the need for future legislation is a good one. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was concerned that consumers in the water and telecommunications sectors might have to wait, but I believe that to be a misrepresentation. A great deal can be done under existing provisions, as is demonstrated, for example, by the social action plan which Ofgem has developed under current legislation ahead of this Bill.
I make one plea. I hope that when those Bills come before Parliament we do not lose sight of the ambitions of the 1998 Green Paper A Fair Deal for Consumers which sought to modernise and make consistent across the sectors the framework of utility regulation. That future legislation must be aware of the need for consistency which will bring considerable benefits.
One of the key elements of this Bill, as noted by the Minister, is the sounder basis of governance that it gives to regulation. There was a real need for consistency between gas and electricity regulation which separate regulators simply did not provide. With the two sectors being so intertwined on both the supply and demand sides, and many major companies operating in both sectors, it was crucial to provide consistency in regulation to avoid important distortions to the competitive marketplace.
Like my noble friend Lord Borrie, I believe that the proposed structure of governance for the authority is a good one. My experience of the management board of Ofgem is that it works well in an advisory capacity, and I believe that in an executive capacity it will work well in the form of the new authority. It helps to depersonalise regulation—that is a great advantage—and does not slow down decision making. The creation of the single regulator helps to lighten the regulatory burden that faces companies. It means that they do not have to face two regulators simultaneously.
A crucial part of the Bill is the facilitation of the reform of wholesale electricity trading. Royal Assent to this Bill is required as soon as possible if the very tight timetable for implementation of that reform is to be achieved. Many other matters must be achieved by Ofgem, the DTI and the companies, but the key element is Royal Assent to the Bill. We are all familiar with the failures of the old pool system which remained unreformed for far too long. Along with retail competition and tough and fair regulation of the
1166
monopoly part of the business, the reform of electricity trading will deliver very major benefits in the form of lower prices.
Business is now preparing for this new trading environment. The private sector has come forward with proposals to launch power exchanges, and companies are preparing for the implementation of NETA. Traders are entering the market to create a much more vigorous, vibrant and deep market. Vigorous forward trading of electricity now takes place in anticipation of the reforms to come. If one looks at the prices revealed by that forward trading, which did not happen before because of the dominance of the monopolies, one sees that they are very substantially reduced. If one looks several years ahead, one sees that the reduction is of the order of 20 to 25 per cent. That is an indication of the major benefits which will flow to customers, not just from the reform of electricity trading, but from the introduction of competition into this sector.
It is not just a price benefit that we shall see. The broad evidence is that distortions to competition impede innovation while truly competitive markets provide a major spur to innovation and change. I have no doubt that the abolition of the pool, and the genuine competition in electricity that that can bring, will surprise us by the nature of the changes and innovation that it can bring.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on being the architect, among others, of telecom privatisation. Few of us could have foreseen the benefits. However, I caution about the specifics raised in his detailed remarks. He referred to the need of careful cost/benefit analysis before regulatory change. But it is easy to identify the costs of changes, and difficult to identify the benefits. I have argued strongly that Ofgem should not attempt a cost/benefit analysis of reform of electricity trading because it will easily identify the costs, but the real benefits which arise from competition, particularly innovation, are hard to identify. Therefore, if one is considering regulation to promote competition—that is a key part of the regulatory function—one will impede change in that direction by a requirement of that kind. We shall need to look carefully at the detailed proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the position of renewables and CHP. There is concern that the new trading arrangements will hit CHP and renewables. Much has been done to allay those concerns. Lower electricity prices, of course, will hit all generators. It will make their position less easy because they will receive a lower price. However, it is worth noting that many CHP plants are, on average, net importers from the grid. Companies in that position will benefit from the reform of trading arrangements.
The lower prices resulting from these reforms make it a good time to bring in the climate change levy if it is well targeted to promote the use of clean, green fuels and technologies and to discourage the use of dirty fuels. That should help the position of CHP and renewables.

1167
However, it is clear that the new trading arrangements place a greater premium on that type of generation which is predictable, consistent and forecastable, and disadvantage generation which is uncertain. I think that that is entirely appropriate. When there is unpredictable supply to the market, the system operator has to buy in expensive flexible plant to meet any shortfall. That is an additional cost that unpredictable sources of generation, whether clean or dirty, place on the system. That should be recognised in the system. It was not recognised in the old pool. One of the advantages of the new arrangements is that it will be recognised; and that will give an incentive for generators to be more predictable and reliable.
However, those renewables which are, unavoidably, less predictable may bear some cost. That has been mitigated. Some technical arrangements to do with aggregation will mitigate the effects on those unpredictable sources of supply. I would expect to see aggregators come into the market to help to manage this risk on the part of such generators. The team implementing the reform of electricity trading and Ofgem have gone to considerable lengths to examine whether there are additional problems that renewables and CHP face which need to be dealt with.
A lot has, therefore, been done. It would be a mistake to allow concern for this sector—as I said, I have a direct interest—to deflect us from the crucial aim of getting maximum efficiency from our generation sector. That is an appropriate objective. If prices fall sharply, and that raises environmental concerns, let us respond in the appropriate way: to tighten, strengthen and extend the climate change levy to deal directly with those environmental concerns.
I have a few more detailed points on the Bill to which I shall want to return in Committee. There has been discussion on whether there should be a cap on the level of fines that the new authority can impose. I see little advantage to the authority in having the freedom to impose unlimited fines. I do not see why the position should not be consistent with legislation such as the Competition Act. It is the type of feature which could discourage inward foreign investment. When people make foreign investment decisions, they consider the regulatory map, and a provision for unlimited fines might discourage. It is an issue to which we should return in Committee.
As my noble friend Lord Borrie said, the time limit of 12 months for the imposition of financial penalties may well be too short. In addition to the need to carry out the investigation, such a time limit could easily give an incentive for an alleged culprit being investigated to engage in a variety of delaying tactics. That is an undesirable feature.
There may also be an omission from the Bill. As regards gas, we already have arrangements to provide for a supplier of last resort in the event of commercial difficulty. I do not think that there is such a provision in the Bill for electricity. That is a concern because with the extension of competition we must expect the failure
1168
of a supplier in the more competitive environment and we must avoid that leading to any unnecessary disruption of supply to ordinary customers.
Finally, I welcome the independent role of the consumer council together with its information-gathering powers. In Committee we should consider whether the precise powers are consistent with other legislation such as the Freedom of Information Bill, to avoid undesirable scope for legislative arbitrage (if I may use the term) between the differing powers of various Acts. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that the authority appears to be adjudicator in the event of disputes between the council and the authority on information questions. That is an uncomfortable position to put the authority in.
I welcome the Bill. It will bring great benefits to customers, both large and small, and I look forward to the more detailed discussion in Committee.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, my noble friends who spoke from the Opposition Benches today have reaped such a rich political harvest that I see no need either to embellish their language or elaborate their arguments. It would be both impertinent and otiose on my part. I should be like a gleaner in stubble land. I shall look ahead, therefore, to the Committee stage of the Bill in order to ask the Minister some questions.
However, before doing so, perhaps I may respond to one remark by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. He made one or two—if I may so say in all generosity—unsporting comments about the excellent speech of my noble friend Lady Buscombe. In particular, he referred to my noble friend's monetary approach to the Bill. But he will have heard the Minister say that since the passage, by the previous government, of the gas and electricity legislation the consumer has benefited not in monetary but real terms by some 30 per cent.
That is real wealth creation, by measures passed by a Conservative government, for the consumer. What could be a more tangible contribution to the welfare of the nation than that? The Minister quoted that statistic, not my noble friend. But his charm and self-effacing manner prevented him from attributing it directly to the Conservative Party.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, made an observation about the social and environmental benefits of the Bill. If he takes the trouble, which I am sure he will, to read my noble friend's speech in Hansard, he will see that she said that those benefits were highly desirable. What my noble friend rightly objected to was the fact that the benefits were being delivered through the Bill by more regulation, at higher cost to the consumer; and not by the general tax and welfare legislation initiated by the Treasury in the normal course of managing the Budget. I have no difficulty in endorsing the position taken by my noble friend.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I entirely take the noble Lord's point and accept what was said by his

1169
noble friend. However, it is that measure in the Bill of which I approve and I was protesting against her disapproval of it being in the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I did not attribute any mischievous motive to the noble Lord; but having heard what he has just said I urge him to look again at Hansard because I believe that my noble friend was making quite a different point.
I turn to the Bill. I want to make three observations, the first two rather tersely and the third, I fear, at greater length. My first observation concerns Clause 13, which deals with the objectives. The clause states:
"in carrying out their respective functions under this Part is to protect the interests of consumers in relation to electricity conveyed by distribution systems, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition between persons engaged in, or in commercial activities connected with, the generation, transmission, distribution or supply of electricity".
Does the Minister see any circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to achieve such consumer benefits by promoting effective competition between persons engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution or supply of electricity? I understand that, as regards the National Grid, such competition is impossible to generate. But apart from that, would the Minister accept that the generation of competition between these commercial actors will always benefit consumers?
My second point of detail concerns the use of privileged and confidential information which the authority and the National Consumer Council can, on occasions, require a licence holder to yield. I was most interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said about potential inconsistencies between this Bill and the Competition Bill. Perhaps I should also add the Financial Services Bill and the Freedom of Information Bill. They all deal with the difficult question of privileged and confidential information and the circumstances in which it is publicised or passed on to third parties.
Perhaps I may invite the Minister to consider whether this is not an appropriate moment in the legislative timetable to iron out the differences between the various Bills and Acts so that we can have a common approach to the treatment of privileged and confidential information. It is a matter of extreme importance to the way in which licence holders conduct their business.
I accept that there will always be circumstances in which it is necessary for a regulatory authority to obtain such information; but, equally, I suggest to the Minister that the circumstances in which such information is passed on ought to be most carefully considered. Only when it is really necessary to do so—and then on the basis of an objective test—should permission be given to a regulatory authority to pass such information on to other parties.
The point I want to make at greater length concerns the question of penalties. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, pointed out, Clause 58 introduces a new Section 27 into the Electricity Act 1989. Essentially, the clause states that new Section 27A will, where a
1170
licensee breaches the condition of a licence, or a requirement of the Act, or a specific performance requirement, that licensee will be vulnerable to a penalty. As the Bill stands, that penalty is of unlimited scale. I believe that the current provisions are not only incompatible with existing legislation, but also threaten the undertaking that the Secretary of State will have given that the Bill conforms with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Perhaps I may explain the position which the Opposition propose to take in Committee on this matter. As regards unlimited penalties, the only constraints on the regulator in the Bill are, first, that the penalty must be reasonable in the circumstances; and, secondly, that at some stage there will be produced under new Section 27B some policy guidance. It would be extremely helpful to the House if the Minister could produce a draft of the policy guidance before the end of the Committee stage.
To the extent that the policy guidance constrains the circumstance in which the penalty can be unlimited, I am sure that the guidance will be favourably received by the Opposition. However, to the extent: that the regulator has the widest discretion to impose a penalty of unlimited scale, there is clearly a danger that such a penalty will fall foul of the criminal provisions of Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The second point I want to make about new Section 27A is that it introduces the potential for multiple jeopardy. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will recall, in the course of the long passage of the Competition Bill 1998 through this House great care was taken to ensure that where a regulator in either the gas or electricity industries decided that a particular matter was more appropriately dealt with by the competition provisions under the aegis of the Director-General of Fair Trading rather than under the regulatory provisions, the regulator would go down the Competition Bill route and would forgo his right to use, say, in the case of electricity, Section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989.
However, no such limitation is introduced into proposed new Section 27A. In other words, it would be possible for the electricity regulator, the new joint regulator, not only to penalise a licence holder under the Competition Act, but also to penalise the licence holder under the Electricity Act at the, same time. In my submission, that is totally against the spirit of what the Government decided when they were promoting the Competition Bill 1998 in your Lordships" House.
There is also double jeopardy in another sense because under the Electricity Act there is already a power for individuals who are adversely affected by a licensee who fails to perform to an appropriate standard. A provision already exists which requires the licensee to pay compensation to an adversely-affected party.
Thirdly, with respect to penalties, in the Competition Act the circumstances in which a penalty can be imposed are limited by the requirement that the wrongful act is committed intentionally or negligently. No such constraint exists in this Bill.

1171
I hope that, over the next week or two, the Minister will take the opportunity to consider the question of penalties and whether it would be appropriate to narrow the discretion in which the regulator can operate. Of course, I have no doubt that the Minister will say to me, "Well, that is all very well. But later on under Section 27 the licensee has a right to appeal".
That is, of course, true. Under new Section 27E, in circumstances where the regulator acts ultra vires or where he breaches some expressly-stated procedural requirement in imposing the penalty or where he gets wrong the date at which the penalty is required to be paid, the decision can be quashed by the court.
However, in my submission there are no circumstances in which the court is capable of reassessing the amount of the penalty. Although the Act states that the tribunal in question can impose a lesser penalty, there are no powers for the tribunal to look at the complaint of the licensee so that that objective can be achieved.
How does this measure up to the European Convention on Human Rights? In my submission, badly. Article 6.1 of the convention requires a hearing to be by an independent and impartial tribunal and requires the hearing to be fair and public. How can the regulator, who determines the penalty, be an independent and impartial tribunal? The regulator decides whether he will pursue the licensee. He assesses whether the licensee has broken the terms of his licence. He then decides what the penalty is. He is an individual appointed by the executive. As has been said in the context of another piece of legislation for which the Minister is responsible, he is legislator, prosecutor and judge, all rolled into one. In my submission, that does not meet the standards laid down in Article 6.1.
Moreover, what rights does the individual have to a fair and public hearing in this procedure? None whatever. He can only make representations. The Minister may say to me, "Well, nevertheless, there is an appeal to the court". In my submission, for the reasons that I have already given, that appeal is wholly inadequate because the facts cannot be reviewed by the court.
I shall listen with keen interest to what the Minister says because he is responsible for another Bill in your Lordships' House: the Financial Services Bill. I wonder to what extent the principle of "Chinese walls" applies to the approach of the Minister.
He will be well aware that, in relation to exactly the same situation in the Financial Services Bill, the Government have come up with a completely different solution: a solution which, although in my view still not attaining the standard required by Article 6.1 of the convention, at least meets it more closely. Under the Financial Services Bill, the regulator can only recommend a penalty. Moreover, the right to go to a tribunal is a right to have the case completely reheard de novo, including a complete rehearing of all the facts.
1172
For reasons that the Minister knows intimately, I still do not believe that the Financial Services Bill meets the standard required. However, in my submission, this Bill certainly does not. Therefore, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that, at least, he should be prepared to go so far as to imitate what he has already done in the Financial Services Bill in Clause 58 of the Utilities Bill.
I have dwelt at some length on this matter; but we in Opposition take it very seriously. We believe that the consumer deserves a fair deal under the Bill. However, it is the licensee who generates the services and in my view the licensee also has rights. He certainly has human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, which very soon is to become part of the law of the land.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, kids himself that he has reaped a rich political harvest out of it. I can assure him that very few points made from the Opposition Benches have not been anticipated and are not capable of response. However, whether I shall have time to respond to every one is quite another matter. Therefore, I make the usual proviso that, if I miss any points, I shall certainly undertake to write to noble Lords. At the same time, perhaps I may say that, as is always my practice with regard to legislation of this kind, I am very happy to meet noble Lords on any and all Benches to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern where potentially we could minimise misunderstanding and disagreement by such a meeting.
My noble friend Lord Judd described this as an "exciting" Bill. I believe that some noble Lords may not entirely agree with that. I have found the study of this subject absorbing. However, I believe that it is fairer to say that a great deal of the Bill is very technical in its application and that, if I am really looking for excitement, I might go elsewhere.
I detect five strands in the debate this afternoon and I shall try to deal with each of them in turn. The first is the accusation that the Bill adds to the cost of regulation and that, in effect, it forms a stealth tax on the consumers of energy to finance the Government's social and environmental programmes. That accusation was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, but was not repeated by anyone else. I was grateful for that.
The second strand is the whole issue of financial penalties, alluded to by many noble Lords. The third concerns the whole range of issues about the environment. To that, I believe I must append "energy efficiency" as I do not believe that I can distinguish between the two in debating the issues which have been raised. Then there is a series of questions relating to the consumer council, its powers of research and publication, and the way in which it will operate. Finally, there are questions about fuel poverty. I hope that I can subsume most of the points that have been made into those five general areas.

1173
Perhaps I may start with the accusation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the way in which we are tackling environmental and social issues represents what she called an "open ticket" to environmental and social taxation. I must say that the guidance which is described here and about which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, seems to be not enthusiastic, is guidance and not direction. That is an important distinction and one which was recognised by my noble friends Lord Borrie and Lord Judd. However, my noble friend Lord Judd recognised it in the sense of looking for greater and more specific responsibilities than could be achieved by guidance.
The important point is that the authority has a range of other statutory duties which have to be weighed when considering how best to contribute to policies. If the Government want to implement social or environmental policies with significant financial implications for consumers or for regulated companies, they are committed to doing so not only by means of guidance but by separate legal provision. It is not our intention to use guidance as a substitute for legal provision. The fact that powers to set energy efficiency and renewable obligations are specifically provided for in the Bill and not left to guidance is proof of this policy and action. The concept of guidance is widely supported. It will ensure that social and environmental matters are properly factored into the authority's decision-making process without compromising arm's-length economic regulation, which is what we aim to achieve.
Before leaving that matter, I should refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about com petition, because it does not fit in anywhere else. He asked whether there are any circumstances in which promoting competition is not appropriate. He immediately answered his own question with an example about pipelines, but there are many such areas—electricity generation, gas and electricity supply—which inevitably have monopoly characteristics. Competition cannot always be the right framework. We are simply not going to duplicate gas pipelines or electricity cables. We are going to find ways round the problem by virtual competition. It is still the case that we want to secure benefits for consumers by competition, but we recognise that that will not always be the case. This must, however, be set in the context that this Government have effectively promoted competition.
I was accused of adding excessively to the cost of regulation, costs which have to be borne by consumers. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to the trend in the Ofgem budget. We have to distinguish in the Ofgem budget between the one-off costs for the establishment of the new electricity trading arrangements and the office merger, which are forecast at £68.3 million, and the remainder of the costs. If those costs are struck out, the costs trend is only very slightly upwards. For 1997–1998, it was £29 million; for 1998–1999, £35.7 million; for 1999–2000, £34.5 million; for 2000–2001, £36.4 million. These costs are not sufficient to justify the kind of statements which have been made.
1174
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked how much the new electricity trading arrangements will cost the industry and consumers. Of course, all these figures are to be found in the Explanatory Notes which have been supplied with the Bill, particularly in paragraphs 167 to 170. The total central and industry start-up and operating costs for NETA were estimated in the July 1999 NETA document as being between £136 million and £146 million per annum for each of the first five years. If that is passed on to consumers, as it ultimately will be, it will mean an annual increase of less than 1 per cent in electricity prices, compared with the projected 10 per cent fall in wholesale prices which NETA will bring about.
I know that that will not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who wants more expensive power. However, it is our objective, in the context of this Bill, to bring benefit to consumers. If it were to be a general principle of public policy for the Labour Party, as it is for the Green Party, to have more expensive power, I have no doubt that we would have to put that into a manifesto and that it would be judged by the electorate, as the Green Party's proposals will also be judged by the electorate. After the first five-year period, the operating costs will be about £30 million for the industry as a whole. No amount of money is insignificant, but it is certainly not of the sort that is being suggested.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made a couple of related points. The first was about exemptions for landlords. We expect landlords to be covered by a clear exemption, without needing to apply for it, so there should not be any increase in regulatory costs for them.
With regard to financial penalties and the issue of whether or not there should be a limit on financial penalties, as there is in the Competition Act, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised, as he did on the financial services market, his fear that there is a contravention of Article 6A of the European Convention on Human Rights and that these will become criminal offences rather than civil offences. We are doing all that we can to ensure that they are civil offences. We believe that they are civil offences. We do not believe that they are in contravention of the European convention. It is for that reason that we do not use the word "offences". We have referred to them as "contraventions" or "breaches of obligations", rather than "offences", which was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
This, of course, is not new. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, the Gas Act provides for penalties in rather the same way as this Bill. Although the European Convention has not yet been incorporated into British law, it is available and there have not, as far as I know, been any challenges of the penalty regime. The fact is that the current enforcement system is weak. A regulator is always one step behind companies which breach their obligations, and we need to put this right.
We do not need a limit on the level of penalties. That would undermine the effectiveness of the powers. It has been honourably pointed out by my noble friends

1175
Lord Borrie and Lord Currie, who subjected me to friendly fire on this point, that a penalty imposed must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. A serious contravention could attract a considerable penalty; a minor contravention could attract only a minor penalty. If we had a limit, we should not be able to impose a penalty which was reasonable in all the circumstances. The Competition Act is different. These are different—
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. As a substitute for the word "reasonable", will the Minister consider the word "proportional"—a proportional penalty?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I resisted that in the Financial Services Bill and I shall resist it here. The word "reasonable" is well understood in law. I am not at all sure that "proportional" is understood in law. Proportional to what?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way again. The notion of proportionality derives from the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was rich in the language of proportionality during the passage of the Human Rights Bill through your Lordships' House; and I believe that, at least, certain sections of the Government are most familiar with this concept which will become enshrined in our law from 2nd October.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has a greater knowledge of government legislation than I. I look forward to debating the point when he puts down an appropriate amendment. My understanding is that "reasonable" works pretty well. Despite what he and the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Currie, have said, the Competition Act is under a different regime with limits which can be traced back to European competition law limits, and there is no reason why the Utilities Bill should follow that precedent.
I was asked about the safeguards which exist for companies in terms of financial penalties. There are many safeguards for companies, and that is relevant to the ECHR point. First, it must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Secondly, the authority will have to produce and consult on a statement of policy on the imposition of penalties. Thirdly, the authority must serve notice of its intention to impose a penalty, setting out which obligation has been breached; which action or omission constituted the breach; and the proposed level of the penalty. Fourthly, the authority must bring to the attention of interested parties and take account of representations received. The authority may then vary the proposed level of the penalty. The company may challenge the imposition or amount of the penalty or payment schedule in the courts. So companies which honour their obligations in all of those respects have nothing to fear.
1176
My noble friends Lord Borrie and Lord Currie both suggested that the proposed time limit of 12 months is too short. I shall think about that point. It is important that these provisions, which plug a significant gap in the regulatory authority's powers, should be fully effective, but I shall think about that between now and the Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked me when the statement of policy would be produced. That is a matter for the authority and not for the Government. However, I shall find out what further information I can on the point and write to him about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked me also about the relationship between the Competition Act and the Utilities Bill. The Competition Act strengthened the sectoral regulators' power to investigate and remedy anti-competitive behaviour in the utility sectors by providing for them to exercise powers concurrently with the DGFT. That is joined-up government. That was anticipated in the Competition Act.
The thrust of the proposals in the Utilities Bill is to improve sectoral regulation, making it more accountable, transparent and predictable and to ensure that consumers receive a fair deal. There is no contradiction between those aims.
The noble Lord also asked me about the relationship with the Freedom of Information Bill. This Bill's information provisions are concerned with proactive publication by the regulator and the consumer council. There is a clear distinction between that and freedom of information which is a right to information when it is requested of public authorities by persons. Of course, the freedom of information regime will apply in due course both to the regulator and to the consumer council.
I have a more complicated answer on multiple jeopardy. Since I am half way through the maximum time which I wanted to allow myself and nothing like half way through my response, and since nobody else raised the issue, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will allow me to write to him about that. The same is true of the imposition and amount of financial penalty.
Therefore, perhaps the House will allow me to move on to the issue of environmental friendliness, which has been a major topic of debate this afternoon. The starting point must be that we have environmental commitments, but they go wider than this legislation. The climate change programme, for example, which we published on 9th March involves matters concerned with this legislation but not only matters which are concerned with it. My noble friend Lord Judd and others asked that environmental and energy efficiency objectives for the authority should be put in parallel with those in relation to the consumer. I say to them that that would not be appropriate. The primary purpose must be to serve the interests of consumers. In itself, that involves an element of environmental protection and energy efficiency. But it is not the only way in which environmental protection and energy efficiency will be achieved.

1177
But the Bill makes a major contribution in that sphere. It includes a duty on Ministers to give guidance to regulators on social and environmental aspects of government policy. It involves new renewables obligations and new energy efficiency obligations. Our renewables obligation is, and has been clearly stated as being, in relation to carbon emissions, saving 2.5 million tonnes by 2010 from achieving 10 per cent generation from renewables. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, thinks that that should be written on to the face of the Bill, but it is a firm commitment by the Government which affects much legislation and it would not be appropriate to put it on the face of one Bill.
The Bill provides a level regulatory playing field for embedded generation, including combined heat and power and small-scale solar generation.
Perhaps I may start at the beginning of the questioning about renewable technology. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, suggested that our funding on research was inadequate and represented only £10 million. In fact, it was £10.5 million in the last financial year; it is £14 million this year; and will be £18 million next year. I believe that that is a suitable answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who asked for pump-priming finance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byfordl, asked me also about whether the Government can increase the renewables obligation. The answer to that is yes. She asked me when the Government will publish their long-term plan for renewables. We have already declared our target. We shall consult further on the target as we get into the period of the build-up towards achievement of that target. We shall establish a clear, long-term framework.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about the impact of the new electricity trading arrangements on combined heat and power and renewables. The problem is that those are not homogenous. The impact of ]META on them will vary, as indeed, the environmental proposal document., which was published last October, made clear. Most combined heat and power sites are net importers of electricity, as my noble friend Lord Currie said, and will benefit from cheaper wholesale electricity prices. Renewable plants which have unpredictable outputߞfor example, wind generatorsߞmay incur imbalance charges but not all renewables generators have unpredictable input.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is enthusiastic about energy from waste. Many in the environmental lobby are not at all enthusiastic about energy from waste and there is great controversy on that subject among those who are concerned with those matters.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about net metering. The Bill is neutral on that. There can be agreements. There have been some agreements about net metering; in other words, those who are generating electricity from generated plant selling back to the generator at the same price as they could buy in. The answer can only be that sometimes it is appropriate and sometimes it is not. The problem with the surplus
1178
from embedded generation is that it is unpredictable and, particularly from solar power, is likely to come at a time when demand generally is much lower unless we make better use of air conditioning than we do at the moment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord, however, agree in the case of net metering that if there is to be a successful development of mini CHI' in domestic premises, something like net metering would be indispensable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that may have to be done by contract rather than by law, by encouraging net metering. We are certainly not discouraging net metering by anything which is being done.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked me some very interesting questions about biomass and renewables and again, those are quite technical and were specific to him. Perhaps he will forgive me if I write to him about them.
In general, the suppliers will need to draw on new technology such as offshore wind and energy crops and non-food crops in order to meet their obligation in the longer term.
The point about the traded obligation is very clear If you do not have a traded obligation, some suppliers will achieve their objective and then rest on their laurels and not go any further when they could go further; and some will not be able to achieve their objective. If you have traded obligations, you have a financial incentive for those who could go furl her than their minimum objective to do better.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I shall be happy to receive a letter from the noble Lord. I totally support the idea of traded obligations. In fact, my maiden speech in this House was on that subject some 14 years ago. In his correspondence with m. I hope that he will be able to deal with the point about the MAFF scheme.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly try to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised the issue of wind farms near national parks. That is an example of the way in which renewable energy is not universally approved of by everybody, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said. There is an element of not wanting the hum or the sight of wind farms too close. That does not apply just if one lives near national parks, but wherever one lives in the countryside.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made a specific point about the effect of regulation on the offshore industry. For the purpose of the principal objective of the authority, which is to protect the interests of consumers, the word "consumers" is defined to include future consumers; in other words, our children and grandchildren, who, in due course, will have their own electricity bills. So would it be consistent with the objective to impose measures that, even if they were

1179
attractive in the short term, would reduce the supply of affordable gas in the longer term? If the offshore industry believes that that would be the effect of any particular proposal, we would listen to it. We shall be glad to receive any correspondence or hold any meetings that would be appropriate for that purpose.
I now move on to the issue of the consumer council. Perhaps I should set out the role of that council in dealing with individual consumer complaints. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, appears to believe that it would be appropriate for the council to have an arbitration system. The present arrangements for the consumer council are confusing and frustrating. They are different for electricity and gas, as those concerned with consumer interests know. The joint council will have a duty to investigate complaints and the right to require—not request—information from the companies relevant to a complaint, so that it can assemble the whole picture. It will try to resolve the complaint satisfactorily in the light of its investigations, and it will seek, by agreement, to resolve complaints as far as possible by mediating between the consumers and the utilities. It will also inform the regulator if complaints raise enforcement or regulatory policy issues.
I believe we are providing the classic consumer protection service: expert assistance, backed by information gathering powers so that the complaint can be resolved satisfactorily. That is complemented by the publication powers that are not exactly those of the authority, which go wider, but the council will be able to publish anything that it believes will promote the interests of consumers without the consent of those to whom the information relates, unless the publication will have serious and prejudicial effects on those persons. The council may publish information, even commercially confidential information, which has adverse effects as long as they fall short of serious and prejudicial effects. Serious and prejudicial effects are not an exemption from publication by the authority because the authority is there to come down like a ton of bricks on people who behave badly. That is not exactly the role of the consumer council.
In relation to most consumer protection organisations, the harm threshold is a high one. However, I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, says that there is a conflict in the advice he has been given by the Consumers' Association and the CBI. I acknowledge that we fall in between the two, and probably cannot satisfy either of them.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that what I have said includes the right to gather information, the right to conduct research as well as publication itself. If direct access to information is refused by the utilities, there is the possibility of a reference to the authority—the licensing authority—which will have sanctions that it can apply in appropriate cases.
Perhaps I should say more about the role of the information commissioner, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and by the noble Lord, Lord Currie. We accept that there may be a role for the
1180
information commissioner, or perhaps some other arbitrator, in adjudicating disputes about the council's access to information. That may be in cases where the licensee or the authority considers that it has a right to reject a request for information under the regulations setting out the exceptions to the council's right to information. The regulations aim to provide an objective test.
Currently, the Bill provides that the authority will decide those matters, but we see a case to retain some flexibility as to who may be the best person to adjudicate so we intend to bring forward an amendment in Committee to allow for the appointment of an adjudicator by regulation.
The issue of reasonable consumer interests, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is a difficult one that I do not have time to deal with now. If it comes up in Committee, we can discuss the matter then. The noble Lord has received representations. Ann Robinson, the chairman designate of the new consumer council, is consulting on a five-office regional structure. Perhaps we can re-address this problem when her consultation is complete.
Perhaps I should say a word about fuel poverty. In general I am grateful for the support expressed for the fuel poverty provisions, but I must make it clear that fuel poverty is part of a wider problem of social exclusion. The ministerial group on fuel poverty goes across a number of departments and affects many aspects of government, of industry and of regulation. Because we have a more competitive energy industry in this country, it is not appropriate for us to adopt the French experience of a social price, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred.
I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said about prepayment meter prices. Again, that is a matter that can usefully be discussed between now and Committee stage.
I have trespassed on the kindness of the House for too long. It is clear that we believe that this is a Bill that, effectively, promotes the five objectives that I set out in introducing it. It would be inappropriate for me to repeat those objectives. I believe that the Bill will put gas and electricity regulation on a secure footing for the next decade. It is capable of adapting to changes in markets and capable, at all times, of protecting consumers. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Myra Hindley
6.48 p.m.
The Earl of Longfordrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what reasonable grounds there are for the continued imprisonment of Myra Hindley after 35 years.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I want to ask the Government whether there are any reasonable grounds for continuing the incarceration of Myra Hindley after 35 years. I do not expect a dramatic

1181
answer from the Minister. I am aware that there is much public animosity towards this young woman, stirred up, over many years, by the tabloid press. I shall be content with a guarded answer from the Minister.
A cruel injustice is being done to a young member of our society who, many years ago, sinned terribly. She has repented completely. As someone who has known her for 30 years, I am well aware of that. All I can do tonight is to bring this issue before the public. I am an unrepentant believer in the ultimate sense of justice of our Ministers, Opposition leaders and the general public when they have the facts before them. Tonight I shall attempt to contribute to their knowledge and understanding.
Rather more than 33 years ago, two young people, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, were condemned for horrifying crimes. Those crimes have gone down in history as among the worst and most revolting ever committed. Now, of course, they are both incarcerated.
I have visited Ian Brady at various times over the years. His attitude towards me has varied. At one time we were good friends, but then he said that he suspected that I was a Home Office lackey. I cannot say that he and I are any longer intimate friends. For a number of years he has been in Ashworth hospital, the northern equivalent of Broadmoor to which offenders suffering from mental troubles are sent. Recently he has expressed a desire to die. I do not believe that anyone should allow a person in their charge to die. However, I do not think that he would agree with me on that point. Perhaps that wish indicates his present state of mind.
He is a gifted man. He was illegitimate and never knew his father, but. I met his mother, who was a very nice woman. Some years ago he published quotations from some letters that he wrote to me. The late Professor Rowse wrote to me to say, "That man, Brady, must be a remarkable man". Even as a boy—and long before he met Myra—he was a criminal, but he already had a good knowledge of Russian literature. He is a very unusual man and a tragic figure.
It was a part of Myra's destiny to work under him in an office and to fall under his influence. Indeed, she continued to love him for a long time. Until she met him she had been a good Catholic, but in the following years she lost her faith. She recovered it when she went to prison. I met her perhaps two years after she began her sentence. Already she had returned to the Catholic faith, although at that point she was still in love with Ian Brady. Eventually that came to an end.
She was an infatuated accomplice and she herself would be the first to agree that it was right that she was condemned to spend many years in prison as a punishment. Certainly, she will be haunted all her life by the things in which she was involved.
In the intervening years she has obtained an Open University degree with honours and today she is a devoted Catholic. Various priests would testify to that. Noble Lords may not think that my testimony is of any importance, but I should like to point out that she is
1182
particularly fond of my wife. It would be safe to say that she is fonder of my wife than she is of me, but that is understandable.
As I have said, she is a devoted Catholic, but she remains incarcerated. Her present priest has given me permission to quote him as saying that she is a "truly spiritual woman". However, that is not the view taken by the nation, especially when it is instructed by the Sun newspaper, which has portrayed her as a monster. Recently that newspaper suggested that perhaps the best thing would be for her to come out of prison, whereupon she would be lynched—or words to that effect. That is the situation with which we are confronted.
Recently, Myra Hindley's case was brought before the Law Lords. After a three-day hearing in this place, they rejected the claim that what the Home Secretary had done was unlawful. But they left a loophole. The Home Secretary has stated that it would be possible to modify the earlier decision that in her case the sentence of life must mean life and that she must die in prison in the light of her exceptional progress. No one who has visited as many prisoners as I have could deny that Myra Hindley has made exceptional progress. If she has not done so, then no one has done so. The case has been returned to the Home Secretary. For that reason the Home Secretary may be rather guarded in his reply.
The case is also being taken to the European Court. Again, the issues will be strongly argued when it is heard. It is not for me to offer an opinion on the legal aspects of the matter, but on the face of it I agree entirely with the conclusion submitted by her counsel that the sentence of "the whole of her life" is contrary to all the legislation covering human rights. It represents a cruel and unusual punishment.
Perhaps we should examine the record of the state over recent years as regards the case of Myra Hindley. Some years after she was sent to prison, the Lord Chief Justice of the day twice suggested that a tariff of 25 years should be fixed for her. However, a new Home Secretary came along and fixed her sentence at 30 years. Later, a sentence of "all life'' was imposed. What was happening? No one could pretend that the crimes has got any worse and she herself was making progress. Nevertheless, the sentence was increased. In other words, the rules of the game were altered halfway through the game. In my eyes, that is a disgrace to British justice.
What would I recommend for the future? Of course I hope for a decision from the Home Secretary and/or the European Court. What is the answer for a case of this kind? I agree with the opinion of many distinguished lawyers that the decision in a case such as this should not be left to a Home Secretary. We can all sympathise with the position of the current Home Secretary and not for a moment do I suggest that I could do any better.
On a previous occasion I may have mentioned that when I was chairman of the Labour Party penal affairs group just prior to the election of the Wilson government—whereupon I became the Leader of the

1183
House here—my good friend, the famous writer Evelyn Waugh, wrote to me to say that it was a good thing I was not Home Secretary otherwise we would all be murdered in our beds. He was entitled to his point of view.
When all is said and done, any Home Secretary must shoulder a terrible and difficult responsibility. On the one hand—I am sure that it is particularly the case for our present Home Secretary, who is a good Christian man—he feels a deep and fundamental sense of duty to maintain the confidence of the public. It would be no good having a Home Secretary who lost that public confidence, as one or two of us might have done had we served in that office. Such a Home Secretary would not be equal to the job. A Home Secretary must achieve a balance between maintaining the confidence of the public and offering justice to the individual. That will never be easy.
Before I sit down, perhaps I could make a suggestion. I believe that the Parole Board, whether as presently constituted or in a somewhat modified form, would represent the fairest kind of tribunal. Already that board takes decisions in cases of discretionary life sentences; only mandatory sentences are left to the Home Secretary. I suggest that this case be referred back to the Parole Board for further consideration.
I should mention to noble Lords that I am not addressing only the vast public gathered here tonight; principally I am speaking for the record. Some years ago the Parole Board did consider the case of Myra Hindley. It recommended that she should be sent to an open prison in preparation, no doubt, for her release. But that was turned down and I am saying that the matter could go back to the Parole Board. That is my best suggestion.
I would not be too dogmatic as to whether or not that is the right procedure. But, looking at the issue more broadly, I am aware that the House, the Minister and, above all, the Home Secretary are faced with a test of courage. Over the years, several people have said to me, in one way or another, "Of course I agree with you, my dear chap. She has been treated disgracefully. She ought to have come out long ago but no one has the guts to let her out". I do not believe that our Home Secretary is lacking in guts. I ask the Minister to convey to him what we have said tonight, and ask him to consider it all carefully.
7 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has immense experience in this case, and, whatever one's views on the course to be followed, he has earned great respect on all sides and in all parts of the country for the dedication with which he has pursued this case. He is, of course, the only participant in this debate tonight who has experience of the subject.
1184
That having been said, our view from these Benches is that life really does mean life. The decision originally taken in 1994 by my right honourable friend Mr Michael Howard that Myra Hindley should serve a life tariff was reached after the most careful scrutiny of the case. That decision was confirmed by the present Home Secretary in 1997.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but otherwise I should have to do it later. Surely the noble Viscount must agree that that was increasing the penalty beyond what was expected earlier, when the crime had not got any worse.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that intervention, but perhaps I can just go on to this point. The difference between any debates that we have had on this subject and this one is that we have had a chance to have the debate since the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House found that the imposition of a life tariff was entirely consistent with the law. If I may say to the noble Earl, the Home Secretary's decision—the noble Earl understandably questions the competence of politicians to make these decisions—was unequivocally fortified by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I shall make this interruption the last one. The noble Viscount is talking of the law. I am talking of justice. The law does not lay down the rule about justice.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the constitution of this country leaves the law to the lawyers but the justice has to be interpreted on this occasion by the Home Secretary.
In addition to the unanimous findings of that committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyne, who made the judgment which most of the other Lords of Appeal followed, referred to the submission by Hindley's counsel that the whole life tariff was disproportionate. I am tempted to quote in toto from his findings on that point: however, I shall repeat just two sentences.
"Even in the sordid history of crimes against children the murders committed by Hindley, jointly with Ian Brady, were uniquely evil … The pitiless and depraved ordeal of the victims, and the torment of their families, place these crimes in terms of comparative wickedness in an exceptional category. If it be right, as I have held it to be that life long incarceration for the purposes of punishment is competent where the crime or crimes are sufficiently heinous, it is difficult to argue that the case is not in this category".
The noble Earl invites us to forgive. However, there is a difference between personal forgiveness and forgiveness by the state. There will, I am sure, be many individuals who take the view that, with 35 years of incarceration, Hindley has paid for her crimes and shown true repentance. But every test of opinion shows that those people are in a substantial minority. That may be so, but I suggest that the state does not have that option. In any consideration of what remission the state will grant an offender, regard must

1185
ssurely be had to the extent of the crime. There can surely be no question that Hindley's deeds plumbed a depth of cruelty and depravity which to the vast majority of people in this country was quite unimaginable.
With great sadness I have to say to your Lordships that we have crossed the borderline beyond which any idea of tempering retribution does not fall to be considered. There is the element of retribution and also that of deterrence. The fact that in the intervening period there has mercifully been nothing like it in its dreadfulness, and an absence of the copycat which so often is a feature of these crimes, in our view justifies this life sentence. But here again we feel that the exemplary element of the sentence must continue to run. So we are in accord with the Home Secretary's decision that life must mean life. Though I am sure the noble Earl is aware—indeed, he has referred to this—that there are provisions in these cases for periodic review by the Home Secretary, he should not attach any hope to a decision in Hindley's favour.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, why should it not be in her favour. Why should she not be given remission?
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's intervention again. Mine is a personal view, but it is also the view of my party. There have been two totally ad idem decisions by successive Home Secretaries, and I leave that matter there.
One further point to which the noble Earl has not referred relates to the families of the murdered children. There are alive at least one parent of a child to whose murder Hindley has either confessed or of which she has been convicted, whose body has never been found. In one case a brother had to visit Hindley in prison to see whether any clues could be found, but to no avail. I ask your Lordships whether society can live with having in the same community someone responsible for that murder.
We have to consider not only the parents of those whose bodies have never been found, but also the brothers, sisters and wider families of the other victims who have suffered and continue to suffer. I fear that Hindley has not fully paid and will never fully pay for that suffering.
However, once again I pay tribute to the noble Earl for all the effort he undoubtedly put into this cause. We from these Benches cannot agree to his plea for her release. The legality of the Home Secretary's decision on a life tariff has been unanimously endorsed by the Court of Appeal of your Lordships' House and we agree with the judgment of a life tariff, endorsing as it did that of my right honourable friend Mr Michael Howard, now made again by the right honourable Mr Jack Straw. The degree of evil inherent in this crime leaves him, in our view, with no alternative.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I wonder whether I may put a question to the noble Viscount before he sits down. It is true that Myra Hindley was guilty of the most appalling, dreadful crimes, but the trial judge was
1186
well aware of the gravity and depravity of the crimes when he sentenced her and imposed a tariff of 25 years, which later was raised to 30, if I heard the noble Earl correctly. Is it not the case that what the noble Viscount's party seems to be suggesting is that that tariff be increased from 30 to, let us say, 65 should Myra Hindley live to the age of 85, which is equivalent to the average female life expectancy at the moment?
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. The view of my party is that life does mean life. But, as has been said before, there are provisions for review. That is perhaps the justice that he would seek. So, life does mean life.
7.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Longford has a long and honourable record in supporting and visiting prisoners. I am sure that we all acknowledge his real concern for their welfare. However, that does not always mean that we have to agree with everything that he says and does in this field. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, observed, we ought also to acknowledge that my noble friend has campaigned vigorously for Myra Hindley's release over many years.
Before I refer to the offences for which Myra Hindley was convicted, and the reasons for her continued imprisonment, I wish to refer briefly to the background to the mandatory life sentence. Parliament decided in 1965 when capital punishment for murder was effectively abolished that there should be a mandatory sentence for murder of life imprisonment. But despite many opportunities for the law to be changed since then, Parliament has continued to maintain the position that the mandatory life sentence is the appropriate penalty for the most heinous and appalling crime of murder.
The Government have no intention of bringing forward proposals to change the mandatory sentence for murder. Nor does my right honourable friend the Home Secretary intend to give up the responsibility entrusted to him by Parliament for deciding if and when the case of a mandatory life sentence prisoner should be referred to the Parole Board. He believes that his exercise of that quasi-judicial function, for which he is answerable both to the courts and to Parliament, generally continues to carry the confidence of the public.
It would not be an appropriate function for the Parole Board to decide on how long a person should serve for the purpose of punishment. The Parole Board directs release in the case of discretionary life sentence cases, and advises on release in mandatory life sentence cases, only after the tariff period set by the courts or the Secretary of State has expired.
It has long been recognised by successive Home Secretaries that there are some murders so terrible that the perpetrators should be required to serve the whole of their life sentences in custody. For example, in December 1966, during the Second Reading of the

1187
Criminal Justice Bill in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, then Home Secretary, acknowledged that there would be a,
"few killers for whom a life sentence must mean what it says"—
life must mean life. All the Lord Chief Justices from Lord Widgery onwards have accepted that there are circumstances in which the life sentence should mean imprisonment for life as punishment.
In practice, only a small number of whole life tariffs have been set. There are at present just 23 people, including Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, in custody with whole life tariffs. Like all tariffs, these tariffs have been set to reflect what is regarded as the necessary period to be served for the purposes of retribution and deterrence. They do not relate to present or future risk. That issue becomes relevant only when the tariff period has expired. Nor does the tariff set initially take into account exceptional circumstances, including exceptional progress in prison. That, too, is a separate issue which may result in a reduction of tariff. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has undertaken to consider representations on this basis from Myra Hindley, and nothing I have to say this evening should be taken as prejudicing his consideration of those representations.
I turn now to the circumstances of the particular case raised by my noble friend Lord Longford. Although I do not propose to go into unnecessary details about the offences of which Myra Hindley was convicted or those to which she subsequently confessed, I believe it only right that I should briefly set out the facts. Myra Hindley was convicted at Chester Assizes on 6th May 1966 of the murders of Lesley Ann Downey, aged 10, and Edward Evans, aged 17. At the same time, she was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to the murder of John Kilbride, age 12.
John Kilbride had disappeared from the streets on 23rd November 1963, after leaving home to go to the cinema. His body was found in a shallow grave on Saddleworth Moor on 21st October 1965. His body was clothed but the trousers and underpants that he had been wearing were pulled down to mid-thigh and the underpants appeared to be knotted at the back.
Lesley Ann Downey disappeared on Boxing Day 1964, after going to a fairground with a friend. On 15th October 1965, eight days after the arrest of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, the police traced two suitcases in the left luggage office at Manchester Central station. They contained pornographic books and books on torture, diaries belonging to the couple, photographs and negatives and two recording tapes. The photographs included some of Lesley Ann Downey naked, except for shoes and socks, and in obscene poses. A scarf was tied around her mouth. One of the tapes recorded her crying, asking not to be undressed and pleading simply to be allowed to go home to her mother. Her naked body was found on 16th October 1965 in a shallow peat grave on Saddleworth Moor. Her clothing, shoes and a string of beads were buried beside her.
1188
Edward Evans was last seen alive by his family when he left home at about 6.30 p.m. on 6th October 1965 to go to a football match. Myra Hindley's brother-in-law, David Smith, telephoned the police on 7th October to say that he had witnessed a murder in the house where Ian Brady and Myra Hindley were living. The police discovered Edward Evans' body later that day, trussed up in a polythene bag in a bedroom of the house. Lying near the body was another polythene bag containing a blood-stained axe.
The trial judge, Mr Justice Fenton Atkinson, made no recommendation at the time, or at any subsequent time, as to how long should be served as a minimum for the offences of murder for which Ian Brady and Myra Hindley had been convicted. In his letter to the Home Secretary, two days after the end of the trial, he wrote:
"I did not make a recommendation in passing sentence because the only possible one would have been at that stage that neither of them should ever be set free again".
That was written in relation to the two murders of which Myra Hindley had been convicted and the three of which Ian Brady had been convicted.
At trial, and for 20 years afterwards, Myra Hindley denied that she had taken any part in these three murders. She admitted only to what could not be denied and what she described as "two anti-social acts"—first, not reporting Edward Evans' death to the police and, secondly, assisting in taking nude pictures of Lesley Ann Downey. She denied all previous knowledge of John Kilbride or any previous knowledge that Lesley Ann Downey had been murdered. She accused her brother-in-law of having brought Lesley Ann Downey to the house to have the nude pictures taken and having taken her away afterwards unharmed.
In 1985, a journalist reported that Ian Brady had confessed to other murders and the Greater Manchester Police eventually decided to re-open the investigation into the disappearance of Keith Bennett and Pauline Reade. Preparations were made for a full-scale search of the moors to attempt to discover their bodies, concentrating on areas narrowed down from photographs. Just before the searches started, the senior police officer in charge of the investigation visited Myra Hindley at Cookham Wood Prison and told her that he had good scientific reasons for believing that bodies buried there 20 or more years before could still be intact. He made clear that whether or not she agreed to help, he might well find them. After some thought, Myra Hindley agreed to look at photographs and maps of the moors to point out places that had been of particular interest to Ian Brady. She agreed, as did Ian Brady, to help the police in their searches of the moors.
After her first visit to the moors on 16th December 1986, the search was called off for the winter. Before the search resumed in March 1987, Myra Hindley had given her detailed account to the police of her part in the killing of five young people—Pauline Reade, John Kilbride, Keith Bennett, Lesley Ann Downey and Edward Evans. After her second visit to the moors in March, the intensive police search resumed. But it was

1189
not until 1st July 1987 that the remains of Pauline Reade were discovered. After 24 years of living through an agony of unknowing and grief about Pauline's disappearance, her family were at last able to have the consolation, such as it could be in those circumstances, of giving her a proper burial. No such consolation has been granted to the family of Keith Bennett, whose body has never been found.
Although the evidence to support further prosecutions was strong it was decided, after careful consideration at the time, that it would not be in the public interest to pursue further charges.
Myra Hindley was convicted of two murders in 1966, the murders of Lesley Ann Downey and Edward Evans. In relation to those two murder convictions the trial judge reported, as I have already said, that the only possible recommendation he could have made at the time was that neither she nor Ian Brady should ever be set free again. It was against this background that Lord Lane, when asked for his views on an appropriate punitive period, suggested that 25 years would be a minimum. That was his opinion. He was not empowered to set a tariff and the tariff was never set at 25 years. Ministers decided for the first time in 1985 that provisional tariffs should be set at 30 years for Myra Hindley and 40 years for [an Brady. These provisional tariffs were not disclosed to them.
When the tariffs came to be reconsidered in 1990 by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, the then Home Secretary, he had much fuller information about the offences of which Myra Hindley had been convicted and the context in which those murders had been carried out. I must emphasise that tariff is set on the basis of murder convictions. However, it is quite proper that further information about the circumstances and context of offences, which comes to light after conviction, can be taken into account in deciding the level at which the tariff should be set.
In 1990 it had become clear beyond doubt that the two appalling murders of which Myra Hindley had been convicted were the last two of five separate murders, carefully pre-planned for sexual and sadistic purposes, which had been committed over a period of two and a quarter years, the last of which was committed when Myra Hindley was 23 years old. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, decided, in consideration of those facts, that the appropriate tariff for the murders of which she had been convicted was whole life. The charge is sometimes made that that decision was taken for the purpose of political gain. I believe that is unfair. Certainly there was no immediate political advantage to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, the then Home Secretary. Tariffs were not then publicly disclosable, nor were they expected to become so. Neither Myra Hindley, nor anyone else, was told what her tariff was.
As a result of a decision of your Lordships' House in 1993 in the case of Doody and others, the gist of judicial recommendations and tariffs set were required to be disclosed. Disclosure was made to Myra Hindley in December 1994 and she was invited to make representations before her tariff was reconsidered.
1190
Following reconsideration of all of the facts and the detailed and lengthy representations ma de on her behalf, the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, decided that the tariffs for both Myra. Hindley and Ian Brady should be set at whole life. His written reasons given to Myra Hindley for the decision included the following words:
"The Secretary of State attached weight to the premeditated nature of the two separate murders of two wholly innocent victims, and the pitiless part which you played in them.
In particular, the Secretary of State attaches weight to the circumstances of the murder of Lesley Ann Downey. He has had regard to the fact that you drove Ian Brady to the fairground on Boxing Day 1964 to look together for a victim, in the knowledge, on your own admission, that three young people had previously been abducted, put to death, and buried on the moors. Having seen the 10 year old girl on her own, you watched and targeted her before enticing her to go with you to your house, where preparations had been made to take indecent photographs. On arrival, she was forcibly gagged with your active participation, put in terror of what would happen to her, made to undress and photographed in obscene poses. She was then murdered. You drove the vehicle, which took her body to the moors where she was buried.
About 9 months later, you drove Ian Brady into Manchester, where a young stranger of 17, Edward Evans, was hired to your car and driven by you, back to your house, where he was savagely murdered by being struck on the head with 14 blows with an axe and strangled with a ligature".
In November 1997 solicitors acting for Myra Hindley asked my right honourable friend the Home Secretary whether he proposed to stand by her whole life tariff. In a Written Answer in another place on 1st December 1997 he stated that he had looked at the papers considered by his predecessor, which included descriptions of the crimes for which she had 'been convicted, the judicial comments made in her case, and the representations, and saw no reason to depart from that decision. He added that he would consider further representations made on the subject: of whether the whole life tariff should be reduced by reasons of exceptional progress by her.
Your Lordships will know that Myra Hindley has challenged her tariff through the courts by way of judicial review. Following the hearing of the case in December 1997, the Divisional Court, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, unanimously upheld the lawfulness of whole life tariffs in principle and the decision to set a whole life tariff in this case. The Court of Appeal, presided over by the Master of the Rolls, unanimously dismissed her appeal against that decision on 5th November 1998, but granted her leave to appeal to your Lordships' House. The Appellate Committee, which heard her further appeal, gave its decision on 30th March. In a unanimous judgment drafted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, the appeal was dismissed.
At the end of his speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn—some of this text has already been mentioned but I repeat it at length—said about Myra Hindley's offences,
"The Secretary of State was therefore entitled to take into account that the two murders of which she had been convicted in 1965 were the culmination of a series of five murders committed by her and Brady. They abducted, terrified, tortured and killed their victims before burying their bodies on Saddleworth Moor.

1191
Hindley was a woman of competent understanding. The argument that she was not the 'actual killer' must be put in perspective. Her role in the murders was pivotal. Without her active participation, the five children would probably still be alive today. The pitiless and depraved ordeal of the victims and the torment of their families, place these crimes in terms of comparative wickedness in an exceptional category. If it be right, as I have held it to be, that lifelong incarceration for the purposes of punishment is competent where the crime or crimes are sufficiently heinous, it is difficult to argue that this case is not in that category. In my view, the decision of the Secretary of State to maintain a whole life tariff in the case of Hindley, is lawful".
1192
I have set out our reasoning at length. I have also briefly gone through the reasonable grounds that successive Home Secretaries have given in setting a whole life tariff. We see no need to depart from those grounds now or in the future.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I assure him that, speaking on behalf of all who are interested in the good treatment of prisoners, his reply—I do not blame him for it; it comes from elsewhere—was one of horror.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock.

  UNHCR: Audit Certificates
  UNHCR: Audit Certificates
  Belfast-Lame Railway
  Belfast-Lame Railway
  Ulsterbus Fleet
  Ulsterbus Fleet
  Kenneth Noye
  Kenneth Noye
  Bestiality
  Bestiality
  State Schools and Freedom of Information Legislation
  State Schools and Freedom of Information Legislation
  Committee on Standards in Public Life and Freedom of Information Legislation
  Committee on Standards in Public Life and Freedom of Information Legislation
  Visa Correspondence Unit: Back log
  Visa Correspondence Unit: Back log
  Iraq: Demining Equipment Export Licence
  Iraq: Demining Equipment Export Licence
  Macau: Strategic Export Control
  Macau: Strategic Export Control
  Vaccines and Injectable Medicines: Bovine Material
  Vaccines and Injectable Medicines: Bovine Material
  Gulf War Veterans: Questionnaires to GPs
  Gulf War Veterans: Questionnaires to GPs
  Grammar School Ballots and Petitions: Expenditure
  Grammar School Ballots and Petitions: Expenditure
  Tourism Forum Meeting, 18 April
  Tourism Forum Meeting, 18 April
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Mortgage Lending
  Mortgage Lending
  Money Supply
  Money Supply