Sitting of 16 May 2000

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

  CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 23 May.

  GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 23 May.

BILL PRESENTED
  RAILTRACK (WAVERLEY STATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Mr. Secretary Reid presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 8 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Railtrack (Waverley Station): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 24 May, and to be printed [Bill 124].
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    China
    Mr. John Wilkinson: If he will make a statement about the UK's bilateral relations with the People's Republic of China. [120870]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We pursue a strategy of critical engagement with China. That enables us to pursue a dialogue in depth with another permanent member of the Security Council on a range of issues of mutual anxiety, such as global climate change, nuclear non-proliferation and regional tensions such as those in south Asia. At the recent round of human rights dialogue, agreement was reached on a visit to discuss abolition of the death penalty, a joint working group on implementation of the two United Nations covenants, which China has signed since the start of dialogue, and on a visit to Tibet by the all-party Tibet group.
    130
    However, we remain deeply concerned about the persistent violation of human rights in China, especially the continuing arrest of political dissidents and detention without trial.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that reply. Is he also concerned about the unlawful behaviour of the police during the official visit of President Jiang Zemin, when they snatched banners and Tibetan flags from protesters after they had been briefed six or seven times by Foreign Office officials? Does he take pride in the fact that the United Kingdom failed to co-sponsor the resolution of the United States of America—that freedom-loving nation—to the United Nations Commission for Human Rights to protest against human rights violations in China and Tibet?
    Mr. Cook: We did not sponsor the resolution. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we voted against the Chinese motion of no action, which was carried. We did not sponsor the resolution partly because we did not understand the purpose of handing China a victory on its motion of no action year after year. However, when Europe discussed the matter, we expressly said that our decision in future years would be weighed against the progress that is achieved in the human rights dialogue with China.
    On the hon. Gentleman's other question, I noted what the Metropolitan police said in their submission to the court. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman noted that the statement stressed that the police facilitated a highly visible and loud protest on subsequent occasions when President Jiang Zemin was present. I re-emphasise that the Foreign Office made no request to the police to confiscate flags.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that China is a colossus on the world stage—whether in terms of the environment, whether in terms of global security, or whether in terms of its general geo-political importance—and that it is important to maintain a dialogue with it? Does he also agree that, in that context, President Jiang Zemin's visit was important and successful?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend sets out clearly and eloquently why it is important for Britain and other major world players to be able to hold frank and open dialogue with China and to start from the perspective of taking each other's views seriously.
    I want to stress one of the points that I made in my initial answer. On current projections, China will produce as many greenhouse gases as the United States in the next generation. In those circumstances, it is vital that we engage constructively with China on stabilising the global climate.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What representations he has received calling for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. [120871]
    Mr. Philip Hammond: What actions Her Majesty's Government have taken to convey their disapproval of recent events in Zimbabwe. [120875]
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the situation in Zimbabwe. [120884]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We deplore the continuing violence in Zimbabwe and the persistent failure of its Government to guarantee the rule of law and to respect its citizens' rights to freedom from political intimidation.
    I regret that the Government of Zimbabwe have rejected every reasonable proposal for international help with a fair programme of land reform. We deplore the continuing threats against commercial farmers, who provide one of the essential pillars of the economy in Zimbabwe and its main access to foreign currency. If President Mugabe persists with his threats to confiscate farms without compensation, he will sentence the economy of Zimbabwe to isolation and his Government to international condemnation.
    Today, Don McKinnon, who is the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, and a team from the European Commission are in Harare to agree the terms under which international election observers can be deployed. I hope to speak to Don McKinnon tomorrow. The talks have already obliged President Mugabe to announce last night the date for elections on 24 and 25 June.
    I have stressed in the Commonwealth and the European Union that election observers must be deployed immediately. No election can be free and fair unless political parties can campaign without repression and voters can go to the polls without fear. Not only Britain but the world is watching and monitoring the conduct of the elections. For our part, Britain will do everything possible to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe can choose their future in freedom and without fear.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that complete and strong answer. Does he agree that the situation has been moved on by the announcement of the date of the elections on 24 and 25 June and that the priority now is to get a Commonwealth team of observers into Zimbabwe to ensure that proper voter registration lists are drawn up, that proper constituency boundaries are sorted out and that the elections are free and fair? Does he also agree that intimidation should cease now?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing his support, and I utterly echo and endorse his demands. On the teams of election observers, I am pleased to tell the House that it appears that the Secretary-General has reached agreement with President Mugabe. If that agreement is also achieved by the European Union, we would expect that both the Commission and the Secretary-General will leave behind in Harare today the nucleus of a team of observers, and we will certainly work to get it up to full strength as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hammond: Foreign Office Ministers have previously said that a military coup is a precedent for
    132
    suspension from the Commonwealth. If Mr. Mugabe reneges on his promise of elections, or if those elections are patently unfair, and he remains in power beyond the constitutional time limit, will the Foreign Secretary give a commitment that Britain will regard that as the equivalent of a military coup and immediately seek Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman slightly understates the opportunities available under the Millbrook action programme, which provides for the suspension of Governments who are in power unconstitutionally from the councils of the Commonwealth. Whether the Government of Zimbabwe find themselves in that position in future will crucially depend on the conduct of the elections. That is why we shall watch with great care the report of the international observers and why we shall press the Commonwealth ministerial action group to pay particular attention to the conclusions of the Commonwealth's observers.
    Mr. Robathan: When I read the screen at 1 o'clock this afternoon, I was surprised to discover that my question had been grouped; I had had no notification of that.
    I, too, welcome the strong tone of the Foreign Secretary's comments, but actions speak much louder than words. Why do not we suspend the British military training team that is currently in Zimbabwe? Why do not we suspend all aid to Zimbabwe? President Mugabe is a pretty authoritarian dictator, whatever past elections may have shown, and is involved in murder, so why do not we send him the message that we will not tolerate such behaviour or continue to support his regime?
    Mr. Cook: With respect, we have sent such a message repeatedly, and I have just done so again today. On aid, I have repeatedly told the House that I would be extremely reluctant to take steps that made the position of the poor in Zimbabwe even more miserable than it is already under President Mugabe. I do not see the sense, from our own national interest, of suspending the very large programme that we have combating AIDS in a country where a quarter of the population is HIV-positive. However, if the elections are not free and fair and if the political violence does not moderate, a lot of options will be on the table, and we shall keep many of those issues under review.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: I welcome all that my right hon. Friend has said today and all the efforts that he and his colleagues have made through the international community to try to resolve the very difficult situation in Zimbabwe, but does he recall vividly, as I do, that during the 18 years of the previous Government not only were we isolated in Europe, as is well known, but British policy on southern Africa was, quite disgracefully, frequently totally isolated in the Commonwealth? Will he therefore be wary of instant Opposition experts on such problems and continue with the strategy of working with our partners in the international community to resolve those very difficult problems?
    Mr. Cook: It is fair to say that one of our strengths in the current crisis in Zimbabwe is the universal support that we have had from many of the Commonwealth African leaders, especially President Obasanjo of Nigeria,

    133
    who has been robust in his criticism. I know that his support for our views and his strong support for democracy reflect the fact that he knows that the Government substantially supported the case for democracy in Nigeria during the years of military rule. The support that we are mustering from others in the Commonwealth reflects the fact that they know that we take the Commonwealth seriously.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: President Mbeki of South Africa, whom we shall welcome to this country later this week, has spoken of an African renaissance. Is not part of the tragedy that follows the brutal actions of President Mugabe, in encouraging the squatting and deaths, the fact that such a vision becomes less possible? Investment will dry up, and so much damage has already been done that it will be very difficult to restore the basis of confidence that is essential for that African renaissance.
    Mr. Cook: I think the tragedy of what is happening in Zimbabwe, and the publicity that necessarily surrounds it, is that it is obscuring some of the success stories of Africa and the general trend towards higher standards of democracy there. I believe I have spoken to all the leaders of the countries surrounding Zimbabwe, and it is fair to say that there is widespread alarm not just about the situation in Zimbabwe, but about the impact that it will have on the region if it is not brought under control.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: I endorse all that my right hon. Friend has said about the situation in Zimbabwe, not just today but in recent weeks, but may I press him on the issue of the British military advisory training team? The House should be given the clear message that that team does invaluable work, not just in Zimbabwe but throughout southern Africa, and that calls for it to be dismantled would be counterproductive in a huge range of countries.
    Mr. Cook: I echo my hon. Friend's praise for the work done by the training team, whose commitment extends throughout the region. It is much valued by Zimbabwe's neighbours, and we would not want to take any step that would make them feel that Britain was reducing its commitment to the region or to the countries themselves. However, if our observers come back and say that the election was pursued with violence and political intimidation, we may well have to review the team's location.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not the Foreign Secretary right to exercise some caution with regard to suggestions of immediate suspension—not least because of the attitude of Mr. Tsvangirai, president of the Movement for Democratic Change, who has courageously sought to continue to argue a case for democratic change but who, in this context, has cautioned against any early effort to suspend Zimbabwe because of the weapon that that might well hand Mr. Mugabe in the coming election?
    As we are talking about suspension, can the Foreign Secretary tell us what rather tortuous process allowed the Foreign Office to move from suspension of the export of military equipment and arms to what I now understand to be cancellation of the licences? That is welcome to many Members, but there is residual anxiety about why it took
    134
    so long. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary would like to place in the Library of the House the changed legal advice that he received, which enabled him to make the decision that he announced at the end of last week.
    Mr. Cook: As I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman a week ago, I defer to his superior knowledge of the flexibility of legal advice. I can only welcome his support for the actual outcome.
    On the question of sanctions, I spoke to Mr. Tsvangirai again at the weekend. As I have been accused by President Mugabe and others of backing Mr. Tsvangirai, let me put it on record that I am not backing any candidate in the election, but I am certainly backing the demand by Mr. Tsvangirai and the opposition for a free election process in which they can present their views. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct: Mr. Tsvangirai is not calling for sanctions, which he thinks would play into Mugabe's hands in the current circumstances, helping him to fulfil his ambition to stage a confrontation as an election backdrop. I think everyone understands, however, that if the elections are not free and fair, the international community will have to reassess the position.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: One of the reasons given for restricting the amount that can be given to the Zimbabwe Government for land purchase and the compensation of white farmers is that existing land has been reallocated to the cronies of President Mugabe. Could my right hon. Friend publish the evidence for that? I think the detail would help the advancing of the case.
    Mr. Cook: I am pleased to say that the information is published. Indeed, it is published in the Zimbabwean Parliament, with answers from the Government of Zimbabwe. It details that, over the past three years of the commercial farm programme, half the farms have gone to employees of the public sector, or to people with connections with the Government. We have always stressed that we are willing to help to fund a fair land reform programme, but that it must be within the rule of law, involve a fair price for the farmer and, importantly, help the landless poor, not those who have the right connections.
    Mr. Francis Maude: I strongly agree with the Foreign Secretary's insistence that the elections that have now been announced in Zimbabwe must be open, free and fair. It is only a few weeks until polling. We know that for many weeks there has been systematic intimidation of opposition activists and voters, with whole villages told that there will be vicious reprisals against the village unless it returns a ZANU-PF candidate.
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that even if observers could start tomorrow—as we hope they will be able to do—their ability to ensure a fair election has already been massively compromised because of the intimidation that has already happened? Did not his failure to engage the Commonwealth early enough in the process allow Mugabe to believe that he could get away with it? Has not his softly, softly approach given Mugabe breathing space in which to intimidate his way through the election?
    Mr. Cook: First, may I say that I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's characterisation of the political violence of the past few weeks. I said to the House a week ago that the current position in Zimbabwe had already compromised the prospect of a truly fair and free election. Nevertheless, the Opposition are united in demanding that international observers be admitted as soon as possible in the hope that that will inhibit some of the worst of the brutality. That is why we are doing everything possible to get those election observers in as quickly as possible, hoping that it may contribute towards a fairer climate of elections. As to what conclusion they come to, I will wait for their result.
    I am disappointed, particularly given the exchange that I have just had with the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) continues to complain that we have not taken tough enough sanctions. He has just heard me say that the Opposition leader, whose life is on the line, does not want us to take those sanctions because it would be counterproductive.
    I add that, when the Opposition leader came to see me four weeks ago, he came fresh from meeting the right hon. Gentleman. He told me that he had said to him that he wanted bipartisan support for the British position and did not want him to play party politics. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not take that advice. It is the one thing that the Opposition of Zimbabwe have asked him to do.
    Mr. Maude: Does not the Government's reluctance to put pressure on Mugabe, now an established law breaker, contrast with the Government's attitude to another Commonwealth African country—Sierra Leone? Is it not now clear that it was a mistake to pressure President Kabbah into pardoning Foday Sankoh last year, giving him a whole new power base from which to organise further violence and killing? Did the Foreign Secretary see the remarks of the Nigerian negotiator, Dr. Fayemi? He said:
    We called it the pact with the devil.
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are not on the right country. For all that, would the Foreign Secretary like to make some comment? We are dealing with Zimbabwe. I know that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was trying to make a comparison, but it was not close enough.
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful, Madam Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation and I believe that I must be allowed to rebut it. The agreement that was reached at Lomé was brokered by ECOWAS. It was signed and witnessed by ECOWAS and by the Organisation of African Unity. We were not party—
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: What is ECOWAS?
    Mr. Cook: I do not know what Conservative Members are doing discussing Sierra Leone if they do not know what ECOWAS—the Economic Community of West African States—is. We were not party to that agreement. Nor did we pressure President Kabbah to sign it; far from it—the peace agreement was wildly popular in Sierra
    136
    Leone. It has also enabled us to drive a wedge between the rebels, which is why the former army of Sierra Leone is fighting against Sankoh, not alongside him.
    Coming back to the matter under discussion, I conclude by saying that I note with regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken this opportunity to take the advice of the Opposition leader in Zimbabwe and give us the bipartisan support that would give greater strength to our protest.

    Japan
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about Britain's relations with Japan. [120872]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): We have a close and strategic partnership with Japan based on strong trade and investment ties, a shared interest in a peaceful and prosperous world, and a commitment to expanding the already wide range of people-to-people links.
    I should also like to take this opportunity to express our sadness at the death, at the weekend, of former Prime Minister Obuchi. We offer our condolences to his family.
    Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the Government's positive attitude to Europe is one of the reasons why there is so much Japanese investment in Britain? Does he also agree that the reason why there is so much Japanese investment in Wales is the success of the Welsh Development Agency—whose chairman is currently in Japan, trying to enlist more Japanese investment in Wales? I should also point out that next year will be UK-Japan year, which will allow an opportunity to reinforce the United Kingdom's tremendous links with Japan.
    Mr. Vaz: I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, more than 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in the European Union comes to the United Kingdom because of our strategic position in Europe. As he will also know, 56 Japanese companies are prospering in Wales because of the Government's policies and the activities of the Welsh Development Agency—starting with Sony, in 1973.
    I should like to thank my hon. Friend for his links with the Japanese Parliament. I know that he is a member of the House of Commons rugby team, which frequently has matches with the Japanese, and that, at the most recent match, the House team beat the Japanese—no doubt because he was playing.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Given that, under the United States-Japan security treaty, Japan is the mother port for the US seventh fleet, on which the security of the whole region depends, what obligations does Britain have in the event of an attack on Taiwan from the Chinese mainland?
    Mr. Vaz: Relations between the United States of America, Japan and the United Kingdom are excellent—we are all members of the G8—and I am sure that those excellent relations will continue.

    Burma
    Mr. Tony Colman: What steps he is taking to promote democratic rights in Burma. [120873]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We are deeply concerned at the brutality of the military in Burma, the systematic use of forced labour and the displacement of ethnic minorities. Within the European Union, Britain recently proposed measures that have toughened Europe's common position against the regime in Burma. Within the International Labour Organisation, we have vigorously supported the decision to invoke article 33—for the first time in the organisation's 80-year history—against Burma.
    During my visit to Thailand last month, I took the opportunity to visit a refugee camp for those who had been forced out of Burma by the military. I pledged to them that we would not relax our pressure on the regime in Burma until it respected the democratic rights of all the people of Burma.
    Mr. Colman: I thank my right hon. Friend not only for that action by the Government, but for the further action that he has taken in encouraging Premier Oil to withdraw its investment and stop its work in Burma. In the past day, we have seen newspaper reports of Premier Oil's admission, at its annual general meeting, that democratic abuses have occurred in Burma. Has the Secretary of State had discussions with Björn Stigson, chief executive of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development—which represents all the major multinationals and is greatly concerned about democratic rights in the countries where multinationals work—to determine the possibility of organising an investment boycott by multinationals in Burma? Such a boycott would ensure that if, as I hope, Premier Oil steps out of Burma, other multinationals do not step in.
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. We shall pursue that with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. I have already raised the issue with my colleagues in the European Union. I noted with interest what was said at Premier Oil's annual meeting yesterday. I fully understand the concerns of the shareholders about the investment in Burma. We have called on Premier Oil to consider whether withdrawing from Burma would be consistent with its legal responsibilities. It is important that the company should consider withdrawing, because if it continued with its development it would produce a revenue stream that would be available to buttress a regime that is in great difficulty.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Yesterday, Baroness Scotland, the Foreign Office Minister in another place, announced that the presence of reputable companies in Burma does not help the democratic cause. The Foreign Secretary has just said that it is now official Foreign Office policy to lean on reputable companies trading in Burma, such as Premier Oil. When the Minister wrote to Premier Oil pressurising it to pull out of the country, did the Foreign Office also write to other companies trading in Burma, such as HSBC, GEC and BAT, asking them to pull out? If that
    138
    policy applies to Burma, why does it not apply to other countries with similar human rights records, such as Algeria, Cuba and China—or is this yet another example of the double standards practised by a Foreign Secretary who has made a mockery of the words "ethical" and "moral"?
    Mr. Cook: Premier Oil is way ahead of all the rest of British investment in Burma added together. It also publicly claimed that the Foreign Office had told the company that we did not have a view. If it wishes to go public on that, it cannot complain if the Foreign Office takes care to make plain its view on the matter. As for the hon. Lady's last point, if she took the time and the courtesy outside the House to speak to the Burma Campaign or to make contact with any of the many people such as those whom I saw in Thailand who had been evicted from Burma, she would understand full well why we have adopted our policy on human rights in Burma.

    Southern Africa
    Mr. David Borrow: What steps he is taking to promote trade with and economic development in southern African countries. [120874]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend on his successful visit to Botswana and his discussions at the headquarters of the Southern Africa Development Community. Through British Trade International, we continue to alert British business to the many commercial opportunities in southern Africa, including a major three-year trade and investment campaign for South Africa.
    Mr. Borrow: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the effects of the illicit diamond trade in southern Africa? Is he aware that Mr. Sankoh, the leader of the rebellion in Sierra Leone, was recently planning a diamond deal in southern Africa to fund his murderous campaign?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about southern Africa.
    Mr. Borrow: I was asking my hon. Friend whether he was aware of the role of the illicit diamond trade in southern Africa. I was giving a current example of the contact between the rebel leader in Sierra Leone and diamond dealers in South Africa, which is enabling Mr. Sankoh to fund his murderous rebellion in Sierra Leone. Does not that demonstrate that the Government's policy of campaigning against blood diamonds is correct and the role of British troops in Sierra Leone should be supported?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his ingenuity and expertise in raising this important matter. There are many important diamond operations in southern Africa—in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana—that contribute enormously to the economic success of those countries. We back them, but we totally oppose the blood diamond trade in places such as Angola and Sierra Leone because it continues to fuel the conflicts in those regions. That is why we are pressing

    139
    for an international self-certification scheme by the diamond trade, backed by Governments, to stop the trade in blood diamonds and ensure that dreadful conflicts such as the one that we are seeking to resolve in Sierra Leone at the moment are not perpetuated. It is the diamond trade that keeps them going.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Can the Minister describe the new arrangements that he, the Foreign Office and Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry are making for the promotion of trade with southern Africa?
    Mr. Hain: Through British Trade International, which is a freshly launched agency, we are taking several initiatives to promote such trade and investment. In a recent speech in Durban—sorry, in Cape Town—[Interruption.] I shall make a speech on the economic opportunities for trade and investment in southern Africa in Durban next month, if the Opposition can contain themselves. Those initiatives are partly why President Mbeki is visiting London with South African ministerial colleagues, including the Trade Minister, in the next few days for a high-level meeting.

    British Trade International
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: If he will make a statement on the role of British Trade International in securing inward investment into the UK. [120876]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Invest in Britain Bureau is the Government organisation responsible for the promotion of the whole of the United Kingdom for inward investment. In response to the Wilson review of export promotion, we are examining the relationship between British Trade International and the IBB, but have not reached a decision on whether to change that relationship.
    Mrs. Brinton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Can he assure me that any new arrangements will promote increased export opportunities for, and increased investment in, the eastern region—including, of course, my constituency of Peterborough? Will his Department closely monitor the success of those arrangements?
    Mr. Vaz: I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is what any new arrangements will do. The matter is still under review, but British Trade International and the IBB work extremely hard to ensure that the opportunities for investors in Peterborough are made well known to those who wish to invest in the United Kingdom. I thank my hon. Friend for all the excellent work that she does in supporting local firms in Peterborough in winning new markets throughout the world.
    Mr. John Redwood: The bureau has presided over an increase mainly because the previous Government kept our tax rates and regulatory costs well below those on the continent and this Government have not frittered all of it away yet. Will the Minister assure us that he and his colleagues will veto the measures in the draft treaty of Nice that would create a centralised Government in Brussels capable of increasing business taxes and regulatory costs in this country? Or will we see,
    140
    when it comes to a centralised Europe, that, as with Sierra Leone, the Foreign Secretary is the living embodiment of mission creep?
    Mr. Vaz: Nobody could give us better advice on creeping than the right hon. Gentleman. As he well knows, the United Kingdom is the number one location for inward investment anywhere in Europe because of the policies of this Government. We have low taxes and a stable economy under the leadership of a superb Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is very different from the policies of the previous Government. Inward investment in the UK last year reached £244.1 billion—a record level—because of the policies of this Government which make people want to invest here.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key factors in determining inward investment is Britain's position in the European Union? If we were to follow the policies of the Opposition in indefinitely postponing a decision on the single currency and taking the approach of a step-by-step withdrawal from the EU, that inward investment and those British jobs would be lost.
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend, who is much more knowledgeable than the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on these matters, is absolutely right. There is no question that the step change initiative by the Prime Minister, adopted when the Government were elected in 1997, has made a tremendous difference to Britain's position in Europe. We are fully engaged in Europe, as was seen at the recent Lisbon summit, which moved the European Union on to the irreversible path to economic reform. Some 40 per cent. of inward investment in Europe from both Japan and the United States of America, and 50 per cent. of inward investment from Korea, comes to the United Kingdom. Those countries choose to come here because of our pivotal role in the European Union.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that over four years our trade deficit will double to by far the highest level in our history, due to both our manufacturing imbalance and the Government's vast £10 billion increase in red tape and taxation on our businesses? Does he therefore agree that British Trade International needs all the support that it can get because of the Government's truly shameful record on trade and the soaring cost burdens?
    Mr. Vaz: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman had prepared his supplementary question before he heard what I had to say about the statistics. I do not think that £244.1 billion of inward investment last year is shameful. That investment is at a record level, which means that it is an enormously successful outcome. Of course we support British Trade International; Sir David Wright does an excellent job. That is why we are examining the arrangements that will provide a better service for companies that wish to invest in the United Kingdom.

    India
    Mr. Michael Jack: What his policy is on arms sales to India. [120877]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): India is set to be a 21st century super-power, and British-Indian relations, including commercial and defence links, are very strong. All export licence applications to India are considered on a case-by-case basis against the European Union code of conduct and strict United Kingdom national criteria.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister for that positive reply. Will he comment on recent, and what appear to be authoritative, press reports that indicate that BAE Systems has at long last secured a contract with the Indian Government for the supply of 60 Hawk aircraft? If such a contract were to be agreed between the company and the Government, would the United Kingdom see such an arrangement as compatible with an ethical foreign policy?
    Mr. Hain: Indeed it would be compatible, because those Hawk jets are for training purposes, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I commend him for his interest and support in this matter; I think that he has British Aerospace workers, interests at heart.
    I raised the matter when I visited India in November. The same matter was raised, and the Indian Government were pressed on it, by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office during his recent visit. We want to ensure that this £1 billion deal is successful. I cannot confirm the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I hope that the contract will be successful.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that it would be entirely inappropriate for any military hardware from the United Kingdom to be used by the Indian authorities in Kashmir? Do the Government still expect the Indian authorities to develop a policy on Kashmir that takes full account of the wishes and needs of the Kashmiri people?
    Mr. Hain: Despite our close friendship and partnership with India, we pay particular—and more than usual—attention to export licence applications for arms for India. We want to ensure that any arms that we sell for legitimate purposes are not used for illegitimate purposes in Kashmir. We have constantly pressed both the Indian and Pakistani Governments to resume the Lahore process and the dialogue there to achieve peace in Kashmir and so end a terrible conflict.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for supporting the arms industry within the United Kingdom. However, will he consider an urgent case in my constituency? Thorn is trying to sell cable to the oceanographic department in India, which will be used to look for oil. It was told originally that it probably did not need an export licence. However, having pressed the Government after months of delay, the project has now been turned down.
    142
    The cable can be used for detecting submarines, but that has nothing to do with Kashmir. In fact, it will be used for a peaceful purpose. Will the Minister examine this urgent case and ensure that jobs for peaceful purposes while using defence technology, which surely is what we all want to do, go ahead and are not turned down by the Government?
    Mr. Hain: I will certainly look into the case, if I can, and I will respond to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible. I realise that submarines have nothing to do with Kashmir, even under a Conservative interpretation. However, there is always a problem with technology that has dual uses. Technology that appears to be for legitimate civilian uses, as seems to be the case with the example that the hon. Gentleman quoted, can also be used for illicit military purposes. That is why we examine each case very carefully.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: If he will make a statement on the Government's relations with Afghanistan. [120878]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We strongly support the efforts of the United Nations and others to bring peace to Afghanistan and to secure a negotiated settlement that will lead to a broad-based Government committed to stability. That Government should also be committed to putting an end to terrorism, drugs production, drugs trafficking and human rights violations, especially violations against women and girls.
    Mr. Sarwar: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Afghanistan is in a sensitive area of the world. Does he agree on the importance of encouraging dialogue across the region to bring an end to the suffering of the Afghan people?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend—it is why we energetically support United Nations' efforts to achieve peace and stability. However, the Taleban Government in Afghanistan deserves strong criticism for harbouring terrorists, such as Usama bin Laden, who contribute to instability in the region. They also deserve criticism for continuing with the policy of pulling up crops and planting poppies. That fuels the drugs trade—90 per cent. of the heroin coming into Britain comes from Afghanistan. The Taleban Government should be indicted for those policies, and we will continue to criticise them for that reason.

    South and North Korea
    Ms Sandra Osborne: What steps he is taking to promote dialogue between South and North Korea. [120880]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We have consistently supported South Korea's policy of engaging North Korea. Through a series of talks with North Korea, we have repeatedly encouraged that country to respond positively to engagement.
    Ms Osborne: Will my hon. Friend send a message of support to the Governments of North Korea and South Korea as they embark on the process of dialogue? Given the example of East and West Germany, would it not be a great success if Korea could find its way to unity after decades of cold war division?
    Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We welcome the announcement, to which she referred, that the leaders of North and South Korea plan to meet at a summit in June. We urge both sides to make effective use of the opportunities for dialogue and co-operation that the summit presents.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does the Minister understand that it is not immediately obvious why a junior Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister in the United Kingdom should think it incumbent upon him to promote dialogue between North and South Korea? However, if the Minister wishes to take on such very important responsibilities, will he also take the opportunity unequivocally to condemn those Labour Members of Parliament who, throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, supported North Korean communist front organisations? Will he therefore apologise to the Government and the people of South Korea?
    Mr. Hain: Some interventions from Conservative Members are really off the wall, but that one takes the prize. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the past activities of hon. Members, will he also condemn the activities of those Conservative Members who called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged, and who wore badges to that effect when they were members of the Federation of Conservative Students?
    I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's irresponsibility with regard to North Korea. That country has missiles, which it exports. It is very important that we promote peace and dialogue between North and South Korea to ensure that there is stability in the region.

    Iran
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Iran concerning the treatment of Jews, Christians and Bahais. [120881]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We and our European Union partners have regularly raised with the Iranian authorities our concerns over a number of human rights issues, including the treatment of religious minorities in Iran.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the 13 Jews on trial in Iran on what appear to be trumped-up charges of espionage have not been allowed to appoint their own legal counsel, and that their state-appointed lawyers have complained of obstruction? My hon. Friend highlighted Iran's recent record of discriminating against Christians, Bahais and Jews. Will he assure the House that he will continue to press the Iranian authorities to show proper respect and tolerance to all religious groupings in that country?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, we will. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his energetic work on this matter—I know that he reflects the views of many of his constituents, including members of the Jewish community who are, quite rightly, worried about the way in which the trial is proceeding, as we are. That is why my right hon. Friend and I have consistently raised the matter with Iranian Ministers and will continue to do so. Although we engage with the reforming Government of President Khatami and welcome his electoral success, which has boosted the position of the reformers, we are also aware that there is a battle with the reactionaries, who are bringing their odious influence to bear on this trial.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point that the Minister has just made. Will he emphasise to the Iranian Government that they cannot take their place in international affairs when they sponsor terrorism for Islamists elsewhere while persecuting their own citizens?
    Mr. Hain: It is precisely because of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, which we share, that in our discussions with the Iranian Government—and we have established a good relationship for critical engagement and dialogue—we speak not just about business opportunities but about human rights violations.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that for a woman in Iran, it is not required to be a Christian, Jew or Bahai to be persecuted? Will he discuss this aspect of human rights when he next has contact with the President?
    Mr. Hain: I well understand the point raised by my hon. Friend. I would say that the treatment of women in Iran is by no means the worst across the world, but we continue to raise the issue.
    Mr. David Winnick: It is bad enough.
    Mr. Hain: It is bad enough, as my hon. Friend says, and I freely acknowledge that. It is precisely because we have established a relationship of critical engagement and dialogue that we are able to make these points, and have them heard. Indeed, human rights in Iran have improved over the past few years despite these setbacks, and we should acknowledge that. It is terribly important that the reform process under President Khatami is strengthened and continued and that Britain supports that reform process, because Iran is a critical country for the stability of the region.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Foreign Secretary consider postponing his scheduled visit to Iran in July, unless and until such time as a fair trial is guaranteed to the 13 members of the Jewish community who have been arrested and are facing trial?
    Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend's visit has already been postponed once—[Interruption.] Be serious; some of the heckling from the Conservative Benches on this matter is ridiculous.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I do wish that Back Benchers would contain themselves when questions are being answered.
    Mr. Hain: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    We keep all visits under review at all times.

    Slovenia
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What proposals he has to improve the UK's relations with Slovenia. [120882]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The relationship between the United Kingdom and Slovenia is excellent. We maintain a close dialogue over Slovenia's applications for European Union and NATO membership, and warmly welcome the constructive role that Slovenia is playing in south-east Europe.
    Mr. Flynn: As a signatory to the Council of Europe's charter on minority languages, will my hon. Friend commend the exemplary action of Slovenia in its treatment of those linguistic minorities within its border, which, regrettably, has not been reciprocated to the Slovene minorities in Austria or Italy? Italy has long delayed introducing measures that would assist the Slovene minorities there. In the Carinthia province of Austria, the Governor, a certain Jorg Haïder, has recently introduced measures that are damaging to the bilingual Slovene schools.
    Mr. Vaz: I welcome the action taken by Slovenia to protect minorities. My hon. Friend raises with me for the first time the position of Slovene speakers in Austria, and I will pass on that information.
    We want Slovenia to be part of the European Union as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that it has opened 25 of the 31 chapters of the acquis communautaire and has closed 11 chapters. Therefore, there are good prospects that Slovenia will join as soon as possible, and we encourage that. Of course, there will be tough negotiations ahead, but I hope that Slovenia will bring to the EU the issues to which my hon. Friend referred. It will certainly bring to it a country that has a diverse number of minority groups which live together extremely well.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the United Kingdom encourages Slovenia in those endeavours, in respect not only of the European Union, but of NATO? What steps are being taken through Partnership for Peace and other NATO organisations to assist Slovenia to play a bigger role?
    Mr. Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very constructive comments. I am glad to know that he fully supports Slovenia's entry into the European Union and NATO. We have made our position on NATO clear: it is that all aspirants are part of the action plan that has been set out by NATO. I can give no guarantees here about who will join NATO. That is a matter for NATO at its next invitation meeting, at its next major summit.
    146
    However, the fact is that we want to make sure that Slovenia is part of the Europeanisation process that will bring it into the European Union and ensure that it is part of NATO's security arrangements. That will be a beacon of hope to other countries in the region, especially the Balkans.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Does the Minister realise that it is a bit patronising for him to talk about the Europeanising of Slovenia, which happens already to be a European nation? Given that one of Slovenia's principal aims is membership of the European Union, as well as membership of NATO, is not the best contribution that the Government can make to improving relations with Slovenia to reject out of hand the ideas propounded last week by Mr. Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, about the creation of a single European super-state? What countries such as Slovenia want is the creation of a modern, flexible European Union of the sort that would also appeal to the British public—in particular, by tackling the common agricultural policy, which is the major obstacle to the early enlargement of the European Union.
    Mr. Vaz: I need no lessons in being patronising from the right hon. Gentleman, who could give seminars on how to be patronising.
    The fact is that Slovenia wants to be a first-class member of the European Union—it does not want two classes of membership, it wants to be a full member. What the Conservative party and the right hon. Gentleman suggest is that there should be a two-tier Europe. Slovenia is not interested in that. It wants to be a full member, participating absolutely fully in what the European Union does.
    We have made our position on Mr. Fischer's speech absolutely clear. It was a speech that he made personally, in his own capacity, and he did not state the policy of the German Government. Our position on this matter is also absolutely clear. We believe that Europe is a nation of nation states. Slovenia wants to be part of that.

    Middle East
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on progress in the middle east peace process. [120883]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): I returned yesterday from a visit to Damascus and Beirut. I was encouraged by a Syrian and Lebanese commitment to comprehensive peace in the region. Both made it clear that full Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, in compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution 425, would be welcome. I encouraged them to work with the United Nations to ensure stability in Lebanon during and after withdrawal.
    Dr. Starkey: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that the core of the middle east peace process is the Israeli-Palestinian track? Is not he concerned at the multiple signs of a decreasing confidence among Palestinian public opinion in the peace process?

    147
    Signs of that include an open letter to the Israeli public by 130 Palestinian intellectuals; the disturbances across the west bank yesterday and over the past week, which culminated in the death of Palestinians, including Palestinian police; and recent opinion polls within the Palestine National Authority which show that President Arafat's popularity rating is at an all-time low and that only 13 per cent. of Palestinians have confidence in the ability of Prime Minister Barak to deliver a peace process.
    Has my hon. Friend stressed to the Israeli Government the need for them to take seriously the issues of refugees, illegal settlements and Jerusalem, so that an eventual agreement delivers real benefits to ordinary Palestinians, has their support and is therefore sustainable?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are concerned at the serious violence yesterday in the west bank and Gaza strip, and call on both sides to show calm and restraint. Efforts should be focused on moving negotiations forward towards a just, comprehensive and lasting peace. I welcome the Israeli Government's decision to transfer three Palestinian villages east of Jerusalem to full Palestinian control, and look forward to its early implementation. Further courageous decisions by both sides will be needed if the shared goal of a comprehensive agreement is to be realised.

    St. Helena
    Mr. Bob Russell: What progress has been made with preparatory work for legislation to restore full British citizenship to residents of the island of St. Helena. [120885]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Our White Paper last year set out our commitment to extend full British citizenship to all citizens of our overseas territories. That has been warmly welcomed throughout the overseas territories, particularly in St. Helena where it is seen as correcting an injustice. Officials of the Foreign Office and the Home Office are at an advanced stage of preparing instructions to parliamentary counsel, and we hope shortly to proceed to the drafting stage of a Bill. Pending legislation, we have already taken steps to improve access to the United Kingdom for citizens of St. Helena, such as the new three-year visas for employment or work experience.
    Mr. Russell: I welcome that statement. Does the Foreign Secretary realise that next year marks the 20th anniversary of the previous Conservative Government making the citizens of St. Helena second-class citizens? In two years time, on 23 May, it will be the 500th anniversary of the discovery of the island. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that by then full citizenship rights will have been restored to the islanders?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for long enough to know perfectly well that no one can give a guarantee about legislation until the announcement of the Queen's Speech. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has just joined me on the Front Bench, will make sure that I do not even attempt to give such a guarantee. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware of that injustice and that we are determined to put it right.

Defence Procurement
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on two significant defence procurement decisions.
I should like to announce our decisions on a new beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile to arm the Eurofighter, and on delivering the major enhancements to our strategic airlift capability promised in the strategic defence review.
The Government are committed to the modernisation of our armed forces. We are determined to deliver improvements in defence capability, to underpin long-term security and to ensure that Britain can act as a real force for good in the world. Our armed forces deserve the best equipment. We are committed to ensuring that they have the best equipment. However, we are also committed to doing that in a cost-effective way that offers the best value for taxpayers' money. Smart procurement means making every pound count.
We are also aware of the wider context. The procurement package we have selected is clear evidence for our partners on both sides of the Atlantic of our strong commitment to enhance European defence capabilities. NATO's effectiveness depends on continuing technological improvement and on equitable burden sharing. The European defence initiative lies at the heart of that—for the good of Europe, the transatlantic alliance and the international community as a whole.
The BVRAAM is a vital component of the Eurofighter's ability to dominate the skies. It promises to be a highly accurate, highly manoeuvrable missile that will significantly improve Eurofighter's "no escape" zone, and will thus ensure that this world-class aircraft can combat all projected air threats. It will make a major contribution to the air superiority requirements of UK and coalition operations—including NATO operations. Our priority is to sustain Eurofighter's superior capability as far as possible into its service life, which will extend well towards the middle of the century. We need to secure the highest performance, at the best overall value for the taxpayer.
We have had the advantage of a strong competition with high-quality bids from Matra BAE Dynamics and Raytheon Systems Ltd. The competition has been keenly fought, and many right hon. and hon. Members have written to me and to other Ministers.
After a thorough—indeed exhaustive—process, we have concluded that the Meteor missile offered by Matra BAE Dynamics and its consortium is likely best to meet our needs over the life of the Eurofighter aircraft. The overall performance promised by Meteor will ensure that Eurofighter is equipped with the best weapon possible and will deliver the air superiority that is central to success in military operations.
Meteor is a collaborative venture with Germany, Italy and Spain—our Eurofighter partners—France and, we hope, Sweden. We plan to conclude a memorandum of understanding with those European partners by the end of the year, formally committing us all to the programme. Subject also to agreement of satisfactory terms and conditions with Matra BAE Dynamics, we will award a contract as soon as possible.
150
It will be a smart contract. Tightly defined breakpoints in the contract will be linked to flight tests and other demonstrable achievements. Those will focus on, first, the ram-jet motor; then guidance systems and, finally, data links and electronic counter-measures. Specific dates will be attached to each.
Those breakpoints will be auditable and capable of external independent evaluation. If they are not delivered, the contract will be terminated by the partner nations, which will recover all development costs from the contractor.
Meteor is expected to enter service with the RAF in the latter half of this decade. Meanwhile, we intend to buy more of the currently highly capable advanced-medium-range air-to-air missile, produced by Raytheon, to equip Eurofighter when it first comes into service.
Our decision will give the Royal Air Force the most advanced air-to-air missile in the world. It will be welcome to our European partners, and it will also be welcomed by our US allies as a clear indication of our commitment to a strong defence capability, available for all operations in which the United Kingdom might be involved.
Industry in the United Kingdom will also welcome the decision. Matra BAE estimates that it will create or sustain some 1,200 jobs in the UK, including at Stevenage, Bristol and Stanmore. Many of those will be high-quality jobs in new technology, and in system and software design. The United Kingdom will lead this major project.
I turn now to our strategic airlift requirements. Improving the mobility and deployability of our forces was a key theme of the strategic defence review. Events in the Balkans and, more recently, in Mozambique and Sierra Leone have underlined the high priority of increasing our strategic airlift capability. Both NATO's defence capabilities initiative and the headline goal adopted at the Helsinki European Council identify this capability as one in which Europeans need to make particular improvements.
We have explored a number of possible avenues to meet our immediate needs as well as the longer-term requirements. After careful consideration, we have determined that the best short to medium-term solution is a lease of four C17 Globemaster aircraft from the Boeing company. They will begin the first of several years of service with the RAF from the middle of next year. These flexible, capable aircraft will deliver vital, early support to our new joint rapid reaction forces. They will also make a crucial contribution to improving the airlift capabilities available for NATO and European operations and to interoperability with the United States.
Beyond that short-term lease, we have now decided that our heavy-lift needs, from the latter part of this decade onwards, would be best met by the A400M aircraft from Airbus Military company. This promises to be a superb aircraft—a new design that is specifically tailored to meet our military requirement. Moreover, the A400M will offer an extremely flexible capability, covering both the tactical and strategic roles. It offers scope for a multinational support package and substantial through-life cost savings.
At this point, our commitment to A400M is necessarily conditional, in that it is based on assumptions that are dependent both on our potential partners and on Airbus—on their commitments to sufficient numbers of aircraft at launch and the establishment of a viable programme.

151
We hope that we can sign a contract for the A400M urgently, but this must be based on realistic figures for purchase. All countries must balance the size of firm commitments against other priorities for defence equipment. The United Kingdom will order 25 aircraft in the A400M initial launch. That is sufficient to build a viable programme while safeguarding our industrial interests. We look forward to other partners following our lead, so that together we may confirm the launch order as soon as possible.
However, affordability will also rest on confirmation of unit prices at the level offered by Airbus, commitment of the in-service date that we require and satisfactory negotiation of commercial terms and conditions. Programme launch and contract placement must also be achieved within a reasonable time frame.
This will also be a smart process. We will hold European industry to its promises. If Airbus cannot offer us and our partners an affordable and manageable programme on that basis, we will be able to meet our military requirement and protect taxpayers' interests by purchasing a fleet of Boeing C17 aircraft as an alternative. However, we look forward to success in this exciting and innovative programme.
A400M will offer great benefits for the United Kingdom. BAE Systems expects the programme to create directly 3,400 long-term, high-skill, high-wage jobs—in particular at its sites at Filton, Broughton and Prestwick—with indirect employment taking the figure to more than 10,000.
Our industry will be at the forefront of developments in the aircraft's new technology, including a carbon composite and metallic hybrid wing and a new propulsion system. The project will strengthen the European aerospace industry, and will complement the world-leading wing capabilities of British industry, which we are supporting through the major investment that we have recently announced for the development of the A3XX.
A vital and technologically innovative element of the A400M will be its engines. Airbus Military, as prime contractor, will be responsible for selecting the best power plant so that the aircraft will meet its commitments to the partner nations on performance and price. However, we will make sure that, in its decision, Airbus Military takes full account of the merits of the likely proposal from Rolls-Royce and the undeniable quality of its products.
These procurement decisions are of great importance for our armed forces and for our defence capability for several decades to come. They deliver on our promises in the strategic defence review. They make a significant contribution to Europe's defence capabilities and they are good news for British industry and for British jobs. I commend them to the House.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement and for giving me an early copy of his statement. Today's announcement has at last begun to clarify the important procurement decisions in, for example, the strategic defence review, on which so much of our armed forces future capability rests. Giving Typhoon a proper air-to-air missile to keep it a potent
152
weapon system and providing heavy lift to allow our troops to be properly deployed were critical elements of the strategic defence review, as the Secretary of State will recall.
Before putting questions to the Secretary of State, I should like to make a general point. Surely, the decisions could, and should, have been made earlier. Is it not a fact that too many Ministries have a finger in the pie, especially the Treasury? As a result, the decisions have been delayed, perhaps unnecessarily. The Government committing themselves to early decisions while insisting that industry produces on time and within budget is a feature of smart procurement. If, as seems to be the case here, the Government fall at the first significant hurdle, what hope is there for future smart procurement programmes?
The Government made two significant announcements today. Their decision to go ahead with the purchase of Meteor as a solution to their BVRAAM requirement will be widely welcomed. I therefore congratulate Matra BAE Dynamics on its successful bid, which, it believes, will secure high-quality technology-related jobs for some time. However, questions need to be asked. Given the doubts that the Secretary of State expressed about Sweden in his statement, has he received cast-iron assurances from all the other partners who are likely—or whom he believes are likely—to order the missile?
The Meteor contract is to produce equipment at the cutting edge of technology. The Secretary of State accepts that and has made it clear that that entails some risks. He outlined his concerns about those risks today, saying that he has set specific dates by which the progress of the programme can be audited. Critically, he has said that the programme will be terminated if those are not met.
Is the Secretary of State prepared to tell us what those dates are so that we can judge whether the programme is proceeding in accordance with the plans? He spoke about how compliance with that programme was going to be audited. Given the changes that he has announced to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, who does he expect to carry out the independent audit, which, in the past, DERA might well have carried out?
Bearing in mind the fact that the United Kingdom is bearing the largest share of the costs, what will happen if a British Government wish to terminate a programme which they consider is not being met, but which others do not? How can we make a such a decision without incurring penalties? How will we recoup costs in that eventuality and what plans has the Secretary of State made for that?
The Secretary of State was rather vague about the in-service date. Will he clarify that detail by putting it on record when he returns to the Dispatch Box? He said that much had been said about US embargoes on future export orders. No doubt, that is one reason why we chose Meteor in the circumstances. What consideration has been given to the possibility of partners in the consortium embargoing others wishing to sell the missile on? The Secretary of State said that the USA would welcome the order. However, given that the President has lobbied the Prime Minister over the past few months, to what extent is this another case of the Foreign Office giving the Secretary of State a load of bad advice?
On the heavy lift contract, we welcome the Secretary of State's announcement on leasing four C17s while placing an order for 25 A400M aircraft. Once again,

153
however, serious questions need to be answered. On the A400M, how confident is the Secretary of State that the other nations will order, either at all or in sufficient numbers to make the project viable? I note, for example, that the Italians have not only dropped the initial number that they were planning to order, but seem recently to have indicated doubts about ordering any at all. The Germans have been blowing colder and colder on the project as the weeks have gone by.
Is not the announcement of an order of 25 a significant reduction from the UK's anticipated commitment of 45? Will not that, coupled with the lease of four C17s, send a message to nations that are in doubt about their orders that the UK Government are not as committed as they at first appeared? For example, what has the Secretary of State been told about the critical number that needs to be ordered before the contract is viable? How long is the lease for the C17s?
The Secretary of State seems slightly less than positive in his announcement on the A400M, hedging it with many caveats and conditions. Will not that, together with his announcement that he will purchase C17s if he cannot reach an agreement on the A400M, also send a mixed signal to our European partners? Is not his announcement in some senses likely to pose serious logistical questions to the RAF? Surely the prospect of the RAF having to find spares, relevant infrastructure and training for three different air frames raises questions about costs beyond purchase costs. How will the C17s be supported? Will there be a support facility in the UK, or is he anticipating that that task will be done from the USA?
In congratulating BAE Systems on securing the order, the Secretary of State must agree that such questions will need to be answered if BAE is to feel confident in committing the investment and capital that the project requires without raising serious concerns about future decisions and doubts about its viability.
Although manufacturing production and development skills rest hugely on the success of the two orders, it is most critical that the armed forces, as I am sure the Secretary of State will acknowledge, get the equipment that they need to fulfil their operational requirements. That, we believe, is the most important point.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial observations and, indeed, for his general support for the decisions that the Government have taken. I shall endeavour to deal with as many of the more detailed points that he raised as possible, but in the event of my failing to do so, I shall certainly write to him with more specific detail.
In response to the many observations that the hon. Gentleman made about both projects, let me say that it is clearly necessary to be conditional in our approach to such multinational operations because they depend on decisions by our partners. The alternative, for any Government, is simply to go into the market and purchase equipment off the shelf. We could do that, but we are choosing to try to buy the best, most technologically sophisticated equipment. That depends very much on working with partner nations. That is the way in which we are approaching these decisions.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned doubts about Sweden. There are no doubts about Sweden; we are simply trying to attract it to the project in order that the missile may be
154
available to its aircraft. The memorandum of understanding still has to be agreed with our partner nations; that is necessarily so, as I have said, in any multinational project.
I can certainly publish details of the breakpoints and determination of when those assessments will be made once the memorandum of understanding is established. The breakpoints will be a certain period after that date. We shall retain the elements of DERA that give Government advice about the nature of contracts. That was part of the understanding that we set out.
On the in-service date, we anticipate the missile being available towards the end of the decade. On the US attitude, the package will provide significant job opportunities in the United States as well as in Europe. It is in the nature of modern defence industries that they operate around the globe—certainly across the Atlantic. I do not anticipate any difficulty in announcing orders that will create jobs to supply AMRAAM as well as the C17 heavy lift aircraft.
We are confident about the A400M. We are leading the way: we shall be the first country to have officially announced our order for A400M, and we believe that will provide a strong signal for our partners to do the same. Twenty-five is a realistic estimate of the number of aircraft that we require: 26 Hercules aircraft are to replaced by 25 A400Ms, but the A400M will have a capacity that is one and a half times greater than that of the Hercules; therefore, we are investing in significantly enhanced capability for the RAF. The RAF will not be required to maintain or train crew for three air frames. The idea behind leasing the Cl7s is that, once the A400M comes into service, it will replace the C17; then, we shall be dependent on a mixed fleet of two aircraft.
Mr. Barry Jones: My right hon. Friend's excellent statement presages many new manufacturing jobs for Britain, as well as an enhanced defence capability. Will he tell the House when the production of the A400M will begin and the locations at which it will be built? He will not be surprised if I volunteer the services of 4,200 Airbus workers in my constituency to make the wings, because we have a centre of excellence and world-class capability. Will he give further details of the reasons behind the size of the order? We had hoped that 35 would be ordered, and we should like to know why it is to be 25. None the less, the statement is a good one and my right hon. Friend should be thanked.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he rose, I wondered what question he might ask. He has asked me about the projects on many previous occasions and I am delighted to be able to give him today, at long last, a straight and detailed answer. I am also grateful to him for volunteering his constituency: I am confident that it will be one of the places in which a significant number of additional British jobs are created as a result of the decisions announced today.
I made clear our determination to place a firm order for 25 aircraft, but I am confident that the aircraft will be a success around the world. Airbus Military is confident, not only that it will be able to supply aircraft to our partner nations, but that there is significant potential for exports to other countries not yet involved in the project.

155
Therefore, 25 is an initial order, but we are confident that it will lead to further orders and that the aircraft will be a success.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: In order not to blight the Secretary of State's career, I shall not offer him over-enthusiastic congratulations on having beaten off the Treasury. I hope it will be sufficient for me to say that he has managed to square a rather difficult circle.
The announcements are welcome because they strengthen the European security and defence identity, of which common procurement is an important component, and they underpin the expeditionary strategy set out in the strategic defence review. May I express the hope that the Secretary of State will show similar ingenuity in placing the orders for the roll on/roll off ferries, which I hope will follow hard on the heels of today's announcements?
On the question of Meteor, the Secretary of State was diplomatic about exports being thwarted by the United States Congress. However, it must be a matter of some if not satisfaction, at least relief that there can be no question of exports of the Eurofighter being inhibited because Congress might decide that permission should not be given for an American missile for the aircraft.
On the question of the heavy-lift aircraft, it is right to provide the Royal Air Force with the heavy-lift capability which is clearly necessary and which would have been of great advantage, for example, in Mozambique and perhaps in current operations in Sierra Leone. Is it not true that, by demonstrating confidence in BAE Systems from a military standpoint, the announcement will ensure that the company remains at the forefront of civilian aircraft technology as well?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I congratulate him on his determined efforts in pursuing these matters over many months; he has been assiduous in ensuring that they have remained at the forefront of the House's attention. I am grateful to him for his support on previous occasions and today.
These are the collective decisions of Government, and all parts of Government are equally enthusiastic about the position reached and announced today, as I am confident the United States will be. As I mentioned earlier, it provides significant opportunities for US industry, as well as European industry.
I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman also on his sophistication in emphasising the importance of co-operation and collaboration in these projects. Europe is not in a position to invest country by country in the latest technology, particularly for such expensive projects. Inevitably, we must undertake them in collaboration with our European and American partners. These projects represent a significant commitment to such a collaborative approach.
Mr. Bruce George: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can rightly be pleased with himself. He has seen off the greatest enemy of the Ministry of Defence over the past 60 years: Her Majesty's Treasury. That is more than the Opposition succeeded in doing very often when they were in office. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, judging from the glum Conservative faces, he has done the right thing?
156
Has my right hon. Friend informed his wife that she is not likely to attend any White House functions over the next six months? However, that is a price worth paying. When the Defence Committee considers procurement in the next few weeks, it will seek more information about why these decisions were made, but my right hon. Friend can be confident that he and his team have got the decision right—a European missile on a European aircraft, the best heavy-lift aircraft available, and four of them, which is more than I anticipated. We, like my right hon. Friend, will give careful consideration to the fact that we have moved a little towards the European dimension of security. It is right for us to say to Europe, "We are watching you, and you must deliver."
Mr. Hoon: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has pursued the matter with determination on behalf of the Committee which he so effectively leads. I look forward to providing further detail, as required, in due course.
It would be wrong to characterise these determinations as between Europe and the United States. There will be a great deal of work on both sides of the Atlantic as a result of our efforts. Crucially—this will be the most important aspect, as far as the White House is concerned—we are demonstrating a real commitment to improving European capability. The availability of the most advanced missile for Eurofighter and the availability of heavy-lift aircraft mean that Europe's capabilities and its contribution to NATO will be significantly enhanced. That is the message that the White House will most want to hear.
Madam Speaker: Order. May I have brisk questions from hon. Members and brisk answers from the Minister? I have in mind the need to safeguard today's business—after all, two motions have been tabled by the Opposition, and time is getting on.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Secretary of State has chosen the riskiest options technically, the costliest, and those with the greatest potential for slippage, as regards both the missile and the aircraft elements. Can he put the House straight? The A400M is not a heavy-lift aircraft. Will he also make it plain that the A400M could not have taken four Puma helicopters all the way to Mozambique? It does not have the volume or the payload. Unless he retains some C17s in the fleet, when the A400M comes into service the Royal Air Force will no longer have a genuine heavy-lift capacity of its own.
Mr. Hoon: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise when he gives the matter some thought, in operations of the kind undertaken in Mozambique, what matters is not simply the capacity of an aircraft. One must also have regard to the size of the airfield where particular aircraft may land, and the number of times that it may be necessary to fly an aircraft into and out of an airfield. Sometimes, as we found in practice, the very large aircraft to which the hon. Gentleman refers by implication cannot fly into the airfields, and if they do fly into a particular airfield, it is closed for a number of hours before the next aircraft can arrive. A balance must be struck between the size and physical capability of the aircraft in question, and the number of occasions on which it is necessary to fly in

157
Aircraft—particularly if there is an urgent need to reinforce troops in the field, for example. The decisions are taken with such practical considerations in mind.
Dr. Doug Naysmith: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and its clear commitment to the Meteor project and the A400M? The Meteor project will create job opportunities in my constituency. More important, it will keep the United Kingdom and Europe in the high technology end of the crucial business that we are discussing.
The A400M will create and safeguard thousands of jobs not only in Bristol and the surrounding area, but throughout the country and elsewhere in Europe. The project is needed to safeguard essential expertise in this country. It is good for Bristol, Britain and Europe. Will we be able to order more than the 25 that my right hon. Friend mentioned today if negotiations with other countries suggest that that is necessary or even helpful?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I agree with his observations; I am confident that the aircraft will be successful and that, in time, we will be able to order further versions.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Bearing in mind the answer that the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), if the A400M is not big enough to carry heavy artillery and armoured vehicles and the larger helicopters, how does the Ministry of Defence propose to deliver those weapons and vehicles to a theatre of operation?
Mr. Hoon: The premise of the hon. and learned Gentleman's careful lawyer's argument is not right. The A400M is big enough, but the numbers that are carried on specific occasions and the capability of particular airfields to deal with the size of the aircraft are important.
Barbara Follett: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of awarding the Meteor contract to Matra BAE Dynamics, which, as he knows, is mainly based in my constituency of Stevenage. Does my right hon. Friend know that, in the 1980s, Stevenage suffered job losses which were the equivalent of five pit closures through the downsizing of the aerospace industry? Does he realise the boost that he has given to the town's confidence through an announcement that is good for Britain, Europe and—most important to me—for Stevenage?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in putting the case for Stevenage. She has done that with considerable force for a long time. I am delighted that she is pleased with the decision that she has worked so hard to achieve.
Mr. Julian Brazier: While I welcome the decisions on Meteor and C17, will the Secretary of State place in the Library a list of the major equipments in the British armed forces that can be carried on the C17 and not on the A400M?
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman asks that question of me, I am sure that we will be able to supply him with details.
Mr. Bob Laxton: I thank my right hon. Friend for the decisions, which I welcome. Can he tell us
158
yet whether the Rolls-Royce engine is the preferred engine for the Airbus A400M? If not, are there any steps that we could take to facilitate a decision? Can he suggest how many jobs may be created or secured, especially in Rolls-Royce in Derby, which is just outside my constituency, if the Rolls-Royce engine is procured for the A400M project?
Mr. Hoon: Under the terms of the agreement, Airbus Military, as the prime contractor, will be responsible for selecting the engines. However, as I made clear in my statement, we will stress to Airbus Military the quality of the proposal that we anticipate from Rolls-Royce. We are confident that Rolls-Royce will make a proposal that will fulfil the contractor's needs of price, quality and competitive advantage, while supplying jobs for the United Kingdom, especially for Derby.
Mr. Roy Beggs: While I welcome the statement and the commitment to smart procurement, I am disappointed that Raytheon Systems did not succeed. However, I congratulate Matra and accept the assessment that the Meteor collaborative project will ensure that Eurofighter is equipped with the best possible weapon for air superiority.
The Secretary of State suggested in his statement that the choice of A400M and the UK order for 25 will create 3,400 long-term jobs and more than 10,000 jobs indirectly. Will Shorts in Northern Ireland benefit from the opportunities that he announced today?
Mr. Hoon: I hope so, because Short Brothers is certainly a major subcontractor for BAE Systems. How BAE Systems allocates the work is obviously a matter for it, but it is anticipated that work will go to Northern Ireland as a result of the decision.
Mr. David Borrow: My right hon. Friend's announcement will be welcomed by thousands of my constituents who are employed on the Eurofighter and Airbus projects. Although they are mostly concerned about their job prospects, does he agree that it is absolutely vital to our defence capability that the European option for military aircraft and missile systems remains and that the announcement represents a crucial step to ensure that that capability remains in future?
Mr. Hoon: I am sure that that is right. The announcement will safeguard not only jobs in the United Kingdom and across Europe but our technology edge, which is a vital safeguard as we move through the new century. It is vital that we can compete for high-quality jobs in terms of not only numbers, but quality of the work. The decisions that we have taken have been influenced by that and it has contributed to the way in which we reached our conclusion.
Mr. Peter Luff: I certainly join those who welcome today's announcement on Meteor, but I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not include in his list of workers who will welcome it the 360 workers at BAE's rocket motors division in Summerfield, many of whom work in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock). Those workers will produce and develop the boost motor for Meteor. May I

159
say that, given the technical excellence of the Meteor solution and the backdrop of 30,000 manufacturing jobs being lost in the west midlands in the past year alone, any other decision would have been unthinkable? The real sadness is that it has taken so long for the announcement to be made at the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My apologies for not having mentioned his constituency. I am delighted at any opportunity to mention the important contribution that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary makes to his constituents. I apologise for overlooking that fact, but the benefit of those decisions will be felt in a long list of constituencies.
Ms Sandra Osborne: This is, indeed, good news for the workers at BAE Systems at Prestwick, although it is tinged with disappointment given that the Government propose to scale down HMS Gannet—also at Prestwick. However, can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will lobby hard to ensure that Britain receives its fair share of work in those collaborative projects?
Mr. Hoon: Certainly, Britain will be the contracting authority for the missile, and BAE Systems and the consortium will be responsible for leading the project. That is an important way in which Britain will express its leading edge in the organisation of work and the technology. I shall certainly look into the constituency matter that my hon. Friend raises, but there will be significant job opportunities in and around Prestwick as a result of those decisions.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: BAE Systems has its headquarters in Farnborough, in my constituency, so the Secretary of State will not be surprised to know that there will be few glum faces in Farnborough today. I particularly welcome the Meteor decision, on which I pressed him as recently as last week, when he assured me that he would give an answer shortly. I am sure that the fact that we shall ensure that the missile technology will be retained in the United Kingdom will enhance Typhoon's export potential.
The A400M project, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said is risky, will depend wholly on the other partner nations ordering in significant numbers. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how far those other nations have indicated their willingness to sign up to the project and how soon?
Mr. Hoon: The answers to those questions are obviously matters for those countries, but they have generally indicated their support for the A400M project. We are leading the way by announcing our determination to purchase 25 of those aircraft. We are confident that the specific announcement will cause other countries to follow, so it should be possible to reach an agreement by the end of this year whereby we take forward the project. Such collaborative ventures inevitably involve some risk, but we are confident that the quality of the aircraft and the contribution that it can make to creating and securing jobs in the United Kingdom and Europe make that risk worth while.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: The decisions announced today on Meteor will be warmly welcomed by my constituents who work at British Aerospace's Warton plant, who will see it as a vote of confidence in British Aerospace in Lancashire. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the link that Meteor has forged with Boeing will be of significant assistance in expanding opportunities for export orders for the Eurofighter?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are delighted that Boeing is part of the consortium, because it demonstrates that, as I said earlier, this is not a simplistic "Europe against the United States" approach. What we have announced is of significant benefit on both sides of the Atlantic. Crucially, the fact that Boeing is part of one of the consortiums illustrates the point that I have made.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am sorry to rain on the Secretary of State's parade, but the truth is that the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force are the losers from today's announcement as far as the strategic airlift is concerned. The truth is that the MOD has been directed by the Prime Minister and by other Departments, particularly the Department of Trade and Industry, to order the A400M.
The Secretary of State has got no extra money out of the Treasury. Will he make that clear to the House? The other armed services will have to find the money to pay for an expensive commitment that will also have to be supported and maintained by the RAF—a wholly unnecessary different type of aircraft in its tactical airlift inventory.
Mr. Hoon: I am slightly surprised at the hon. Gentleman's observations. In recent months, he has tended to complain that we are constantly concerned about money. On this occasion, we are not necessarily choosing the cheapest option; we are choosing the best option, as far as the RAF is concerned.
The RAF will not lose out. In the short term, we shall have an airlift capability that the last Government were not in a position to order when the hon. Gentleman was advising them, although heavy-lift requirement had been identified. The combination of orders that we propose will secure for the RAF a capability that it did not previously enjoy.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, this is welcome news, and the cheers can be heard from the north-west. Many jobs have been dependent on both contracts. The news about the BVRAAM—the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile—is certainly welcome to the workers in Chorley and in Lostock near Bolton. They have been awaiting the decision, and it is right, as is the decision on the A400M. I will press my right hon. Friend on only one point: 25 is welcome, but will he consider increasing the number? That is important for jobs in Lancashire, and for jobs in the north-west generally.
Mr. Hoon: We are talking about a valuable revision of the distribution of jobs related to the defence industry across the country, and I am delighted that the decision will be welcomed throughout the country on the basis that it will create and secure jobs in manufacturing industry.

161
I think that I have dealt with the point about numbers. These are firm orders, with which we shall proceed in negotiation with our partners.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that component manufacturers in my constituency will also welcome the opportunity of further orders from the companies, but will the Secretary of State tell us what was the quid pro quo from the Treasury? We know that whenever the Treasury gives something, it takes something back. We know that we have replaced the Typhoon's gun with a lump of lead to save money; we know that soldiers are having to go around saying "bang" instead of using real bullets, and that we are having to cancel exercises because there is no fuel for vehicles. What else is having to be cut from the defence budget to pay for what has been announced?
Mr. Hoon: Absolutely nothing. Our proceedings are being observed by a distinguished former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I am sure will give the hon. Gentleman lessons on the way in which the Treasury operates, should he require them.

Point of Order
4.14 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, as a matter of courtesy the Government make statements available in advance to the Opposition spokesman, the Liberal Democrat spokesman and, perhaps, spokesmen from other minority parties. As the Secretary of State is in the Chamber, Madam Speaker, would it be appropriate for you to ask him whether he, any other member of the Government, or anyone acting on behalf of the Government supplied advance copies of his important and complex statement to any of his Back Benchers who are in the Chamber, or were at the beginning of the statement?
Madam Speaker: It is not for me to ask the Secretary of State or any other hon. Member a question across the Floor of the House because the point of order is for me. I am not aware that that is the case. In fact, I have reason to believe that the Secretary of State did not give the statement to any of his Back Benchers, but I will not go into my knowledge on that score. The hon. Gentleman will have to take that from me, but, of course, it is up to any Secretary of State if he wishes to give a statement to any Member. That is for him to decide; it is not for the Speaker.

BILL PRESENTED
  POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  Mr. Secretary Mandelson, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Straw and Mr. Secretary Cook, presented a Bill to make provision about policing in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 125].

  Juvenile Justice
  4.15 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that a young person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of 110 days; and for connected purposes.
  As a Scottish advocate, now non-practising, I recognise that the 110-day rule that applies under Scots law has many advantages over the system in England. It gives great clarity to prosecution and defence alike as to how the rule applies. It is easy and simple to administer, unlike the Government's preferred option in England of different time limits being set for different categories of offender.
  There are compelling reasons to introduce an equivalent rule to the 110-day rule into English law for both social and legal purposes. Three categories of people would benefit. The first is the young offender. Is it not extraordinary that, although figures exist for the length of delay facing persistent young offenders, there are no figures readily available for first-time young offenders? However, the trauma of facing the judicial system for the first time matches, if not outweighs, that felt on repeat appearances. I hope that the Government and the Home Secretary can rectify that situation as a matter of urgency.
  As a general rule, clearly, all young offenders would suffer less were there to be a policy of keeping any delay awaiting trial to an absolute minimum. The anxiety that the accused and their families must naturally feel would therefore be curtailed. Likewise, for the victims of a crime that is suspected of having been committed by a young offender, protracted delay can result in real concerns about justice being done and seen to be done.
  As regards witnesses, the sooner a case is brought to trial, the less chance there may be of any eventual memory loss. It is well known in legal practice that witnesses are very human and that the passage of time dulls the memory, even down to the colour of clothing worn by the accused or an accomplice. Those are compelling grounds to improve the administration of justice with regard to all young offenders. A particularly worrying trend is the rise in crime among the 10 to 17-year-old age group both in London and throughout the country.
  The Narey report contained proposals to combat youth crime, which were piloted in six areas in England between October 1998 and March 1999. Those measures included location of Crown Prosecution Service staff in police stations; use of CPS designated case workers to review files and to present certain cases; the introduction of early first hearings for straightforward cases; the introduction of early administrative hearings for all other cases; changes to the powers of single justices and justices' clerks to assist case management.
  In Ernst and Young's evaluation of those pilot schemes, a definition of a persistent young offender is given as:
  A young person aged 10–17 years who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more occasions for one or more recordable offences and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against him for a further recordable offence.
  The level of support for the Bill shows that more must be done to reduce delays in trials for all young offenders—first-time young offenders as well as persistent young offenders.

  163
  In January 2000, the governor of Her Majesty's remand centre in Northallerton wrote to me, saying:
  Like many others working in the Criminal Justice System I do get concerned about the apparent lack of movement between arrest, first court appearance and final sentence. This is particularly true for young alleged offenders who can spend months on remand in prison with a final "not guilty" verdict at the end of it all. It sometimes appears less than fair…
  I have every sympathy for those who are trying their best to reduce remand time, it must be a thankless task as so many groups might have hidden agendas which inhibit the much needed progress on this issue. The crux of the matter may well revolve around ownership and the ease of administration. If the Police, CPS, Magistrates, Judges and the legal profession can understand the benefits associated with this initiative then I have no doubt it will work. If one group wants to plough a lone furrow the whole concept of speedier justice for the young offender will fail. We do need a system which is easy to monitor and left to one group to manage. The more complicated it becomes, and the more agencies involved, the less effective it will be and therefore unfairness could easily creep in. This must be avoided at all costs as faith in the Criminal Justice System, from whichever end of the spectrum, is a vital element of any civilised society.
  The chief executive of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, Helen Edwards, wrote to me to say:
  we fully support your proposal, which would usefully reinforce the efforts that the Government and the Youth Justice Board are making to reduce the length of the pre-trial process.
  Support has also been expressed by members of diocesan boards for social responsibility. Jo Saunders, a social responsibility officer, wrote to me to say:
  I am pleased to see that your Bill has got this far and certainly support your recommendations and hope that it will receive a commendation from the House.
  Finally, Mr. King, a visitor at Hull prison, has expressed particular concern for Dutch and other nationals who are accused of offences. They often face lengthy delays when awaiting trial and have associated problems with matters such as language and visiting limitations. Those issues also need to be addressed.
  As long ago as the previous general election, the Government promised to take action to reduce delays for young offenders. So far, however, they have failed to deliver. Figures from the Lord Chancellor's Department—in March 2000, in "Youth Justice Board News"—show that Crown court cases take an average of 210 days from arrest to sentence. Therefore, as so much remains to be done, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. James Gray, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Paul Keetch, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. Desmond Swayne and Mr. Christopher Fraser.

  JUVENILE JUSTICE
  Miss Anne McIntosh accordingly presented a Bill to provide that a young person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of 110 days; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 126].
Opposition Day
[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  UK Manufacturing and Enterprise
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. She has also decided that there should be a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  4.24 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government for failing to encourage an enterprise economy, for reducing the UK's competitiveness and burdening all sectors of business with extra regulatory costs and taxation and for adding to the pressure on manufacturing, resulting in many sectors relocating outside the UK; demands that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry outlines the Government's strategy for manufacturing as a matter of urgency, so that industry can plan for the future; and calls upon the Government to commit itself to reduce the overall cost of tax and regulation to business without delay, allowing UK firms to compete in the global market place and to retain a UK manufacturing base.
  When new Labour came to office in May 1997, the Government inherited an economy in which the Conservatives had reformed our trade unions. We had created an enterprise economy in which non-wage labour costs were some of the lowest in Europe and in which the UK attracted one third of all inward investment into the European Union, creating 850,000 jobs. In 1995, the president of Philips said:
  For manufacturing, Britain is the most competitive country in Europe today.
  In October of the same year, the chairman of BMW said:
  Great Britain is currently the most attractive economy in Europe for producing cars.
  Since 1997, under new Labour, Britain has dropped from fourth to eighth in the world competitiveness league. Today's debate is an opportunity to examine what has changed and gives the Secretary of State a chance to spell out his Government's policy on competition, manufacturing and business so that companies can plan for the future—something that they are currently having great difficulty with.
  Ever since 1997, when the "under new management" sign appeared above the door of the Department of Trade and Industry, one thing has become apparent: although they have learned the language of business, there is precious little business experience in the Cabinet. In the three offices of state that should be making Britain more competitive there is one non-practising barrister, one former politics lecturer turned journalist and one polytechnic law lecturer—the three wise monkeys who even now cannot see or hear what is happening to British industry. They lecture and hector people who every day have to plan, take decisions, invest money and create jobs.
  Only today, we read in the Financial Times that in his speech to the CBI tonight, the Prime Minister will signal to business leaders that the Government have broader priorities than appeasing their growing ranks of critics in

  165
  the business community. The Secretary of State for Defence was clearly telling the truth when he told The Guardian last month that
  metal bashing is no longer a vital national asset
  That was a clear message for the Labour heartlands.
  The Government's £30 billion of extra taxes and £10 billion of extra regulatory costs have started to impact on British businesses, but apparently the Government have broader priorities. In other words, they have departed from the field of battle and no longer see themselves as champions of British competitiveness. The Secretary of State has failed to be the sponsoring Minister at the heart of Government on behalf of business. The taxes and burdens imposed by the Government cover areas such as the climate change tax, IR35, employment relations, industrial works councils, increased fuel charges, workplace parking, congestion charges, end-of-life vehicles, employment agencies, sub-post offices, residential care homes—the list goes on. No sector has been able to rely on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to put its case at the heart of Government. His job, as he sees it from the vantage point of a polytechnic lecturer, is to agree to all the new burdens. It is bad enough that he is constantly rolled over by the Treasury, but to acquiesce to policies that emanate from that seething mass of chaos that is the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions gives the impression that he has been dumped by his colleagues. If he is not careful, he could end up as the Labour candidate for mayor of Tyneside.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: How is it, then, that unemployment in the United Kingdom is the lowest in western Europe as a percentage of population?
  Mrs. Browning: Because of the legacy that the Government inherited. One does not need to be able to work out seven times eight to work out those statistics.
  Mr. Peter Luff: I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to remind the hon. Gentleman that 5 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs were lost in the west midlands last year alone.
  Mrs. Browning: Indeed. I shall come shortly to the pressures that manufacturing businesses are under and why they are struggling to maintain their competitiveness in world markets.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I am delighted to give way to the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary.
  Mr. Grocott: The hon. Lady implies that Opposition Members possess tremendous business acumen, so could she remind the House of the practical business proposals that she put forward to solve the Rover crisis?
  Mrs. Browning: I am happy to answer that question from another polytechnic lecturer. I have said before in the House that, before the Rover crisis broke, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament and
  166
  former director of Rover, Mr. Malcolm Harbour, wrote—with my consent as shadow Secretary of State—to the Secretary of State to offer the support of the Conservative party in negotiations with the Commissioner in the seemingly endless battle to secure money from Europe. However, the commitment of the Conservatives to try to help the Secretary of State—he shakes his head, but it is true and he has seen the letter—was made more difficult because he did not think that he had a problem with Rover until the news broke. Our commitment to trying to help Rover was clearly on the record of this House.
  Business will find a different approach from the Conservative Government after the next election.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I shall give way in a moment, but I first wish to explain to business why it can live in some hope that a Conservative Government will change the mess and chaos. We will reduce the costs to business over the lifetime of a Parliament, because the costs of the regulatory impositions put on business by this Government must be cut. We will guarantee that we will report progress to Parliament, so that business will feel that burden lifting. All that business feels at the moment is regulation after regulation and tax after tax—all imposed at the cutting edge of what makes a business competitive. We will guarantee a low-tax, low-regulated economy, and we will ensure that UK companies are not put at a competitive disadvantage to other EU countries.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: While many people at Rover will appreciate what the hon. Lady tried to do, she did not answer the original question. Leaving aside the European grant, what solution did you put forward to solve the Rover crisis?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no solutions to such matters.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman asks what solution we would have put forward. The Secretary of State held a press conference to take the credit for a proposal that he suggested ensured the long-term future of Rover, but had Conservative Ministers brokered that deal, we would not have assumed that we had concluded the negotiations. That will be the difference in the calibre of people who will hold office in a Conservative Government, compared with the people in this Administration who have never run any commercial operation, have never risked anything, and have seemingly never even engaged in a negotiation. As any business man knows—and the hon. Gentleman has some experience in that area—a deal is not deal until it is delivered. Indeed, I would say that a deal is not a deal until it is paid for.
  The Secretary of State took the credit and then took his eye off the ball and did not follow through. In business, as in Government, following through is critical. I do not suggest that a Conservative Government would have or could have prevented any company—
  Mr. Grocott: They were not saying that at the time.
  Mrs. Browning: Yes we were. We live in the real world. The people who read and write about things may

  167
  not know this, but those of us who have had 20 years experience in business—as I have, including 10 years with a British manufacturer—know that nobody should take credit for negotiating a deal until they know that they can follow through and deliver on it. That will be the difference that business can expect from a Conservative Government, compared with the bunch of people in this Government who talk about things they have never actually done.
  Mr. Richard Burden: If that is the calibre that we could expect of a Conservative Government, would it be different from that when the Conservatives were in government? They sold off Rover to British Aerospace in a deal that was found subsequently to be illegal under European law. They laid the foundation for the company to be sold on to BMW without any guarantees for the future, thereby putting the knife in the very hands of those who stabbed Rover in the back.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is reinventing history. As someone who has tried to take a constructive role in the history of Rover for obvious reasons, and who I respect at least for his background in engineering, I would have hoped for rather a better question from the hon. Gentleman. If Labour Members have some sensible questions, I shall be happy to take them. However, I hope that the calibre of their questions will improve.
  Mr. John Bercow: Is it not entirely typical of the Government's arrogant and incompetent approach that having agreed in principle to the part-time workers directive as long ago as April 1998, Ministers took 21 months before issuing their proposals to business for the incorporation of the directive? They then gold-plated its contents, and finally had the brass neck to demand a response from hard-pressed businesses throughout the country in less than six weeks.
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. On Thursday morning, we shall deal in Committee with part-time work regulations. I look forward to that, because my hon. Friend has rightly observed that despite all the rhetoric, we are faced with yet another burden on business. It has been gold plated but the application and administration of it will be as cack-handed as everything else that the Government have introduced. It is bad enough that they keep adding to the regulations that bear on business, but they do so in such a way that businesses are punished even more severely. That is the inept way in which the Department of Trade and Industry goes about things.
  We are looking for a commitment from the Secretary of State that he will learn from the way in which he introduced the working-time directive, for example. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may not know, but I followed the right hon. Gentleman as a speaker on this very subject when he told a large audience of personnel directors that the Government had learned lessons. Clearly they have learned nothing. Alternatively, perhaps like the Prime Minister this
  168
  morning, they now find that business constitutes such an irritating lobby group that they really do not care to listen to its concerns.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: The protest from business that I hear most about from south Yorkshire concerns the strong pound—the over-valuation of sterling. If a Conservative Government were to take office, what does the hon. Lady think that the value of the pound should be against the European currency, and what would she do to reduce the value of the pound?
  Mrs. Browning: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister's statement this morning. He made it clear that those who are suffering from the difference in the value of the pound from that of the euro should recognise that the problem lies with the weak euro. When there is a difference in value that imposes a great deal of pressure and pain on business, especially manufacturing companies, those firms at the edge that are cutting margins should be able to rely on the Government to set an economic backdrop of low taxation and low regulatory costs, and not to add to their problems. That is the difference between enabling such companies to hang on, or not.
  I understand that the hon. Gentleman is an advocate of the failed euro. I hope that rather than asking me questions about what a Conservative Government would do to rescue a currency to which he has so clearly signed up, he will think again and ask himself why he thinks that the euro is so weak. When it was introduced with much acclaim, it was meant to be a world reserve currency.
  I sympathise with Labour Back Benchers, but it is ironic that they sign up to policies that fail and then look to Conservatives to solve the problems. It is flattering, but some problem solving would not go amiss on the part of Department of Trade and Industry Ministers. Many of their policies have caused the problems that are affecting business. Mercifully, business will have only about another year, we hope, to last out under the present Administration.
  Unlike new Labour, we do not regard manufacturing as old industry and IT as the new industry. I understand that, in the glittery, bauble-like world in which Labour Members exist, everything new and modern is good and everything older or traditional is bad. We believe, for example, that e-commerce has an integral part to play in all industries, and especially in manufacturing, for both sales and sourcing.
  The Government talk manufacturing down as an old industry that can now be discarded. They fail to understand the importance of the manufacturing base in this country, the true role of the new technologies being introduced, and the important part that they will play in the future or manufacturing.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: If the previous Conservative Government had listened to the wise words of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), they might have something to say about IT, but I have a simple question for the hon. Lady. If what she says is true, will she explain why Vauxhall, which has facilities in my constituency and in Luton, has faith in

  169
  investing in Britain? That faith is shared by the Quin Glass company in my constituency, which has just announced the creation of 500 manufacturing jobs.
  Mrs. Browning: Only this month, Vauxhall publicly voiced its concern about UK competitiveness, specifically because of the burden of regulation imposed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman has Vauxhall factories in his constituency, and I am sorry that he appears to be unaware of that—perhaps he should set up a meeting with the company on Friday morning.
  Mr. Miller: Answer the question.
  Mrs. Browning: We need no lectures from Labour Members about e-commerce or anything dot.com, as there are enough dotty coms on the Government Front Bench as it is. The Labour Government put the Electronic Communications Bill in a Queen's Speech but then forgot to introduce it for nearly a year. Three weeks before the end of term last summer, the Secretary of State asked the Opposition to nod it through, and we refused. We said that it should be put out to consultation, as it imposed too much regulation and was not what the IT companies wanted.
  The Secretary of State followed our advice, and I am glad that he did. We gave the Bill fair passage in all good faith when it returned after the summer recess. We are happy to help out the Secretary of State if he does not know what to do about e-commerce, but we will take no lectures about IT from any Labour Member.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Lady did not answer the question.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I have given the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) enough licence in terms of sedentary comments. I do not want any more.
  Mrs. Browning: I want to make a little progress, and then I will try to take more interventions in a moment. I note that we are hearing today from the massed ranks of Labour Members who have no connection with business and industry but who form the collective of lecturers and media people.
  The Government also appear to be unaware that global location has become less important. Today, the multinationals can switch manufacturing abroad and still guarantee quality and continuity of supply. Gone are the days when countries in the far east and south America relied on outdated machine tools from western countries. They are well equipped and competitive—and they are competing with us, now.
  Directly as a result of new Labour policies, there is now a dangerous haemorrhaging of UK businesses to other countries. The Government have sent more businesses offshore than the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). Road haulage is just one example of that, and it has been driven out by the highest road taxes in Europe. Before he took his business abroad, Eddie Stobbart stated:
  We had no alternative—it does not make sense for UK hauliers or the UK economy as less revenue will be raised by the Treasury.
  170
  What sort of Alice in Wonderland world is it in which the Chancellor taxes a business to the extent that it has to set up abroad to remain competitive, thereby reducing the revenue that he will receive by having such companies based in the United Kingdom?
  Petrochemical companies and banks are moving out their international information technology processing to Ireland, the USA and Singapore as a result of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. As Computer Weekly reported:
  They are not trying to fight any more. They are just going. They fear the UK simply isn't a safe place for confidential data.
  The famous climate change tax will add to business costs next year. It will add 12 per cent. to Nissan's energy bill, 16 per cent. to that of British Aerospace and 10 per cent. to that of B&Q. Yet Department of Trade and Industry Ministers do not flinch. Manufacturing will bear the brunt of the tax, with no allowance for previous investment in energy efficiency.
  The British Plastics Federation wrote to me saying:
  The Levy, which will cost our industry over £60 million based on electrical energy consumption alone, is a serious threat to our competitiveness.
  It is certainly not alone.
  The Government face judicial review on the matter of IR35. IT specialists, who develop cutting-edge software, have been forced offshore, while the Chancellor gives tax breaks on hardware. Where is the common sense in that? We will have the hardware, but not the software to go in it. One such gentleman from Yeovil in Somerset wrote to me:
  We will move to pastures greener very easily and quickly—suddenly money will leak out of the nation, with barely a whisper of warning.
  Manufacturing has a range of sectors, from food processing to car manufacturing, in which multinationals in particular find it all too easy to relocate. Our national retailers, who once marketed the Made in Britain label, are moving textiles abroad.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend seen, as I have, announcements from electricity companies which, in response to the Utilities Bill, are sacking people as we sit here? Does my hon. Friend know that I tabled a question about how many people have been sacked, and was told that the Minister would let me know shortly? The Government are clearly not in touch with what is happening in this important industry.
  Mrs. Browning: It would be charitable, given how much has been said about the climate change tax, to say that DTI Ministers are in a state of blissful ignorance. However, we know that they are not; they are only too aware of how damaging the tax will be to British industry and manufacturing. Yet despite being the sponsoring Department for business and industry, Ministers make no attempt to speak up for business in Government. They certainly do not speak up for business as far as the Treasury is concerned.
  Between May 1997 and December 1999, 82,000 jobs were lost in the textiles industry. In 1999, the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades estimated that the equivalent of one textile factory closed every day. In its national strategy report, the clothing and

  171
  textiles strategy group highlighted regulation and its implementation as a major burden on business. Yet the Government do not want to listen.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: If things are so gloomy, how did manufacturing output in the last quarter of 1999 reach its highest level ever? Manufacturing, of course, is growing less fast than the rest of the economy, where we have an extra 800,000 jobs. If things are so awful, why do all the statistics look so good?
  Mrs. Browning: As the Engineering Employers Federation has pointed out, that increase has been at the expense of margins. That is all right over a short period, but, as a business man, the hon. Gentleman will know that unless manufacturing can see some light at the end of the tunnel, it will not be able to sustain cutting into its margins to keep up productivity for long. That is the worrying long-term future that manufacturing faces.
  The present Government wring their hands. They offer sums of money to some areas and sectors and not to others. Perhaps the Secretary of State could explain the strategy. Is it based purely on the map in "The Times Guide to the House of Commons", or is there some higher body that he has applied to in order to identify who does and who does not receive Government handouts? I am sure that many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches will want to know, as clearly they will need to indicate to their constituents, when the Minister says that this is a Government that will not intervene, whether there is a policy behind that or just political opportunism.
  The Secretary of State could intervene much more positively. He could promise British business today that he will halt regulatory costs. The Chancellor could look again at the £30 billion of extra taxes on business, particularly those in the pipeline. If they fail to take action, and quickly, they can be sure that the sign that says "DTI" in Victoria street will be replaced very shortly in the eyes of business with one that says "RIP".
  British industry deserves and was promised better than this. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now tell us how he will deliver.
  4.51 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'recognises that industry does not want a return of the boom and bust policies of the previous Government, with interest rates of 15 per cent, inflation above 10 per cent and soaring budget deficits; welcomes the Government's decisive action in taking politics out of interest rate decisions; notes that employment is currently 880,000 higher than it was when the Government came into office, and that long-term interest rates over the past year have been at their lowest for 35 years; welcomes the measures that the Government has taken to encourage enterprise, investment and innovation which particularly help manufacturing businesses; welcomes the Government's view that where firms are in difficulty the Government has a role in helping people through change as opposed to the previous Government's laissez-faire approach; and condemns the Opposition for its record in government, when manufacturing employment declined by 2¾ million.'.
  172
  The Government fully recognise the challenges that manufacturing faces in a global economy. One of the ways in which we can assist manufacturing to meet those challenges is to provide the economic stability that we now have in the United Kingdom, not because of some legacy from the Conservative Government, but because of the steps that we took on coming to office in the first few days after 1 May 1997, giving the Bank of England independence over interest rates to ensure that we did not play politics with interest rates, which certain right hon. Members opposite may well have done during their time as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I have not started yet. Let me get through my introduction and then I shall be more than happy to give way, even to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  In the contribution of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), there was no recognition of the situation of manufacturing under the Conservatives. There are figures that demonstrate very clearly that while there may be difficulties in some sectors of manufacturing, as there clearly are, we still have a buoyant and vibrant manufacturing industry here in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members opposite should not talk manufacturing down, because there are real strengths.
  Manufacturing productivity is rising by around 5 per cent. a year. Most economic forecasters say that it will continue to rise in the period ahead. Manufacturing export volumes are 9.5 per cent. higher than they were a year ago.
  Let us look at those employed in manufacturing. Regrettably, jobs have been lost in manufacturing since May 1997; manufacturing employment has fallen by around 160,000 in the three years since the present Government came to office. But, in comparison, during the Conservative years from 1979 to 1997 an average of 140,000 manufacturing jobs were lost every single year. Every year for those 19 years 140,000 manufacturing jobs were lost, so we shall not take any lessons from the hon. Lady, who was a Minister in the Governments responsible for that record on manufacturing employment.
  Between 1979 and 1997, manufacturing employment fell by more than 2.5 million people. That is the Conservative record on manufacturing, a record that we shall remind hon. Members opposite about, and remind the country about as well.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will know, if he looks at any table of statistics, that manufacturing employment throughout the world was going down during that period. Will he reflect on what was happening to manufacturing jobs in the Conservatives' last few years in power, on the present Government's statement when they came in that they would do so much better for manufacturing, and then on exactly what has happened over the last three years?
  Mr. Byers: Government is not like pick and mix at Woolworths. The hon. Gentleman must stand on the

  173
  record of Conservative Governments—that was their record. When I talk about people losing their jobs, he—with a majority of only 76—gets slightly worried.
  Mr. Bruce: It is 77.
  Mr. Byers: I apologise—another rather foolish person voted for the hon. Gentleman. However, I can understand his concern.
  Mr. Edward Garnier rose—
  Mr. Byers: I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has a slightly larger majority.
  Mr. Garnier: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. Even assuming—although I do not—that his figures for the years of Conservative government are correct, what will the Labour Government do to put the matter right?
  Mr. Byers: I shall outline our approach. I am pleased that the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention has allowed me to address the point so early. What we are not going to do is take risks with the economy. That is why we are creating economic stability, with inflation under control. We have sound public finance and we are reducing the national debt. That is all in stark contrast to the situation that we inherited when we took office in May 1997. We are creating the economic climate in which business can plan ahead with confidence, knowing that we shall not return to the days of boom and bust that we experienced under successive Conservative Governments.
  Mr. Garnier: Will the Secretary of State give me some examples of where that is working?
  Mr. Byers: I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the announcement made yesterday by Marconi. The company is creating 2,200 high-tech, well-paid jobs in the west midlands. A global company that could have gone anywhere in the world chose to come to the west midlands of the United Kingdom because of the skills of the people in that area and its strengths, and because of the economic environment that we have created. That is why inward investment reached record levels last year. We have created a climate in which people want to invest. We can take pride in that. It is not a legacy from the Conservatives. It has occurred because of the steps that we have taken; the environment that we have created means that businesses want to invest in the UK.
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Surely the Secretary of State should have mentioned in the same breath that today Massey Ferguson announced that it was feared that 2,000 jobs would be lost at its Coventry factory, because of the difficulties experienced by the company. We should not jump to conclusions; the solution at Marconi may be neutralised by losses in other key manufacturers in the west midlands.
  Mr. Byers: It is unfortunate that the hon. Lady did not refer to the whole statement made by the chairman of Massey Ferguson. He said that, if the Government made a commitment to join the single European currency, the
  174
  company would retain its commitment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] That is the truth. The company would retain its commitment to stay in the UK.
  All those Opposition Members who wear nice, shiny brass pound signs in their lapels should realise that that is a signal to the chairman of Massey Ferguson. It creates the uncertainty that leads him to consider those options. That is the reality; rhetoric about Europe and the single currency is creating uncertainty in the mind of the chairman of Massey Ferguson. A little later in my contribution, I hope that I shall be able to reassure people in his position as to the Government's intentions.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, during the past 10 years—especially under the Tory Government—Massey Ferguson shed a large amount of labour, although there were increases in productivity? There has been uncertainty at Massey Ferguson for a long time, as most people are aware. As for the chairman's statement, we all realise that the value of the pound is extremely high and we hope that something can be done about it, but we have not yet heard from the Opposition what they would do about the high pound. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) should be careful when she refers to the history of Massey Ferguson.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point from his personal experience. The chairman's statement was made in the context of the need for certainty about the single European currency.
  Mrs. Browning rose—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
  Mr. Byers: I have a difficult choice to make—between the pro and anti-single currency wings of the Conservative party. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I shall first give way to his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton.
  Mrs. Browning: The Secretary of State is a true gentleman. Given that he has clearly had to make a commitment to Massey Ferguson and to companies like it, will he share with the House the reassurances that he has given them about the Government's commitment to giving up the pound and to joining the euro? What time scale has he set and what does he consider to be the optimum rate of exchange when Britain goes in?
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend should take the intervention of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) straight away, so that he can combine the answers.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may want to intervene after I have given a brief explanation.
  The Government's position is absolutely clear: we want to join a successful single European currency. I assure the hon. Lady that we have the five economic tests and that we shall evaluate those five tests early in the next Parliament. That is the Government's policy and we intend to follow it.
  Mr. Clarke: The chairman of Massey Ferguson would require a rather better answer than that.

  175
  The Secretary of State claimed to have created the conditions that he described, but will he return to the main point? He inherited a circumstance in which we were the fastest-growing major economy in the European Union and we were an extremely attractive base for investment in manufacturing and other industry. He faces the charge that his Government have introduced into that situation higher taxation on business and a much higher level of regulation while doing nothing about the excessive value of the pound. Is he aware how complacent he sounds in the light of all the problems faced by huge numbers of manufacturers across the country?
  Mr. Byers: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a vested interest in talking up this Government's inheritance on the state of the economy. However, he will know that the national debt was increasing, that there were real inflationary pressures and that we did not have sound public finances. Those were the difficulties that we inherited when we took office and we have taken action to address them.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The intervention of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, was very interesting. He put through the Transport Act 1985 and that Act, by itself, was responsible for the total destruction of the whole of the British bus manufacturing industry, including the loss of the Leyland national plant in my constituency that produced 2,000 single-decker buses per annum. His deregulation of transport destroyed the industry.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The facts are worth rehearsing for the benefit of the House. In the early 1990s, almost 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost. Some 70,000 of them were in the motor industry, with 13,000 jobs lost in one company alone—GEC in 1991–92—and 20,000 jobs were lost at Ferranti in the first four years of the 1990s. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton talked about the difficulties being experienced by the textile industry. I accept that there are difficulties, but they pale into insignificance when compared with the fact that, in 1992, more than 1,000 textile and clothing manufacturers went bankrupt—three for every single day of the Conservative Government that year. That is the record of the Conservatives.
  The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) raised the issue of international comparisons and it was a point well made. When one considers the levels of manufacturing output or of manufacturing employment in the other major industrialised countries—whether the United States, Japan, Germany or France—all of us, including the United Kingdom, have witnessed a decline in manufacturing employment and in the contribution that it makes to the gross domestic product. We are not alone in the reductions that have taken place. When people argue about levels of employment in manufacturing, we
  176
  should remember that it is a decline that has taken place in most industrial countries over the 15 past years or so for reasons that most Members understand.
  Mr. Bercow: The Secretary of State simply did not answer the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Given that the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and the British Chambers of Commerce—to name just five representative business organisations—have all recently attacked the Government for dramatically increasing the regulatory burdens that threaten small business competitiveness, why does the Secretary of State continue to insist that he is right and that they are all wrong?
  Mr. Byers: In the debate about regulation and the burden of red tape, a balance needs to be struck between setting minimum standards for genuine entitlements for people in the workplace and red tape and bureaucracy. Of course, Opposition Members confuse the two. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton quoted the cost of regulation as £10 billion, which she took from a survey conducted by the British Chambers of Commerce. However, she did not mention that £6.6 billion of that is the cost of providing an entitlement to four weeks' paid holiday a year. Conservative Members, including the hon. Lady, call that a bureaucratic burden.
  More than 3 million people who benefited from that entitlement will note with interest what the hon. Lady said on behalf of the Opposition. For Conservative Members, £6.6 billion means an administrative burden and red tape, but for people in work it is four weeks' paid holiday a year. We call that decency in the workplace, but Conservative Members talk about a bureaucratic burden on business. That is the difference between our two parties: Conservative Members should give some thought to that.
  I was interested to learn that the hon. Lady launched the commonsense revolution for small business last week. She spoke about exempting from the whole raft of employment legislation small businesses, which are defined as those with fewer than 10 employees. If I am not right, I stand to be corrected.
  Mrs. Browning: That is not right, although it was reported in one newspaper. However, in our "Commonsense Revolution", in which we said that we shall reduce the cost of the burden on business, we said that we shall use the American system, which we have studied carefully, to exempt small businesses. The basis of the exemption will depend on the nature of the legislation. In some cases, it will be based on the number of employees, but in other cases it may be more appropriate to base it on the turnover of the business.
  However, the Secretary of State and small business can be sure that we shall follow the American system to which the Prime Minister pays lip service, but does not emulate. We shall make the country competitive and ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry once again stands for enterprise in relation to such regulation.
  Mr. Byers: Given the hon. Lady's hostility to the principle of the national minimum wage, are we to take it that small firms will be exempt from paying their employees the national minimum wage? [Interruption.] We shall hear that comment in a second, I dare say. Four million people work in firms with fewer than 10 employees, but she cannot give them a guarantee that they will continue to be entitled to receive the national minimum wage. That is the Conservative threat to those on low incomes who receive the national minimum wage; the Opposition cannot guarantee that it will be retained.
  The working time directive and entitlement to four weeks paid holiday a year are also under threat from Opposition policies. That should come as no surprise, because Conservative Members are concerned about red tape and bureaucratic burdens on business, not common decent standards.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham rose—
  Mr. MacShane rose—
  Mr. Byers: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).
  Mr. MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the heaviest burdens faced by businesses in the United States and Europe is having to pay employees' health insurance costs? Are not some of the most sinister threats to the UK's business competitiveness the plans to privatise the national health service and impose health costs on all employers? The Opposition argue for that continually.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point in his usual highly effective way.
  Regulation involving red tape and administrative burdens is important and we shall take steps to deal with that.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: What about the weak euro?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman asks about the euro, and it is time to address the single currency.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
  Mr. Byers: I am sorry, I must get on to the single currency, about which many hon. Members feel strongly. However, before doing so, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree with my interpretation of the silence on the minimum wage of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton: that a future Tory Government would return people in my constituency to working for £1 an hour? Is that what she is really saying by her silence?
  Mr. Byers: The implication of the hon. Lady's position is exactly that. My hon. Friend makes a significant point
  178
  about the threat that will hang over people who receive the national minimum wage in the event of a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Byers: I have a difficulty; I know that the hon. Member for Macclesfield wants to intervene, so I shall give way to him first.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State is coming to the single currency and the euro. Will he comment on remarks made to me only a little earlier today by a very senior executive of Nortel, the highly profitable electronics company that employs more than 11,000 people in this country and wants to employ several hundred more? He said to me, "My company isn't that concerned about the strength of sterling. We are concerned about the over-regulation in Europe and the high social costs in Germany and France. May I make a plea to you to urge the Government not to go down the path of Germany and France? We want a light hand of taxation and of regulation. Given that, we will continue to expand in the UK." That is rather different to the case that the Secretary of State quoted of Massey Ferguson.
  Mr. Byers: I was almost distracted by the hon. Gentleman's pound lapel badge glinting in the light. The gentleman from Nortel makes a strong point. There is no doubt that a Europe based on regulation, directives and negative attempts to control is not the Europe that will be right and fit for the 21st century. That is why the outcome of the Lisbon summit at the end of March was so significant. It set a new direction on Europe—a Europe that recognises the importance of competition and enterprise and that is prepared to lift barriers to ensure that we achieve such objectives.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I agree with my right hon. Friend that Lisbon is absolutely the key. May I take him back to his earlier remarks? What he said will come as a shock to millions of people in this country. Is he saying that he cannot get an assurance from the Conservative party that it will not exempt small businesses from the national minimum wage? If he is saying that, and we do not hear such assurances, major news is being made in the House of Commons. The issue affects millions of people, and they should know exactly what is being said and what is being planned. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to press the Conservatives. Let us have the truth now.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has already disclosed the policy, which is exactly as my hon. Friend has described. There has been no attempt to disassociate the Conservative party from the points that he made. The position is absolutely clear. We know that the debate in the Conservative party about the minimum wage is still being fought by certain members of it, including the hon. Lady, who speaks on such matters for the party.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it could be noted in Hansard that when those exchanges took place, the Opposition Front-Bench team—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must know by now that he must not pursue points of debate through bogus points of order.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Byers: I want to turn to the question of—
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: No, I want to make some progress on the question of the relationship between sterling and, in particular, the single European currency.
  Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman promised that he would give way.
  Mr. Byers: I did promise.
  Mr. Bercow: The Secretary of State, for all his failings, is exceptionally courteous and I am very grateful to him. Given that the United States has been so much more successful over a period of 30 years than the European Union in the creation and retention of private sector jobs, why, in considering parental leave policy, was not the Secretary of State sensible enough to reject the parental leave directive of the EU and instead to copy the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act 1993 from the United States?
  Mr. Byers: Because I took the view, for better or worse, that a parent who works in a firm that employs 10 or 15 people should have the same rights as a parent who works for a firm that employs 500 or 1,000 people. Their parental responsibilities are the same and people should not be denied the opportunity to look after their children in an appropriate way simply because of the size of the firm for which they happen to work. The hon. Gentleman might disagree with that approach, but I think that it was the right one to take.
  On sterling and manufacturing, I understand the difficulties that the current fall in the euro is causing some sections of British industry, especially manufacturing. The current euro-sterling exchange rate cannot be justified by any view of long-term economic fundamentals. Some argue that joining the single currency would end the difficulties that the euro's weakness is creating for some exporters. That was the point made earlier today by the chairman of Massey Ferguson.
  The Government's policy is clear. It was stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in October 1997 and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in early 1999. The crucial factor underpinning any Government decision on joining the single currency is whether the economic benefits to the United Kingdom from joining are clear and unambiguous. Britain should be part of the single currency, provided that the economic conditions have been met and the people have given their consent in a
  180
  referendum—but the five economic tests laid down by the Chancellor have to be met. We shall judge whether the five tests have been met early in the next Parliament. If the economic tests are satisfied, we should join the single currency, if that is what the Government, Parliament and the people decide.
  Unlike the Conservatives, we do not rule out joining the single currency for an indefinite period even if, during that time, it was in the national interest to join. Nevertheless, it is vital that we do not, by default, drift back to a policy of wait and see, as to do so would be to deny a genuine choice to the British people. Therefore, we need to re-affirm our commitment to prepare and decide. We shall not allow political dogma to triumph over the national interest. We shall put the interests of our country and of our businesses first, and provide the British people with the opportunity to exercise a genuine choice in an important area.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the convergence test includes the issue of the exchange rate—currently uncompetitive—and the need to have a more competitive rate for entering the single currency?
  Mr. Byers: Clearly, that will be one of the issues that we shall have to take into account in connection with the five economic tests.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Byers: No, because I want to make progress lest I detain the House too long.
  Business regards the UK as a good location, and global companies choose to locate here. A recent foreign direct investment confidence index identified the UK as the second most preferred destination after the United States for foreign direct investment. In 1998, we had record levels of foreign direct investment. Not only is inward investment increasing, so are exports. The latest World Trade Organisation figures show that, last year, the UK remained the fifth largest exporter of goods in the world. Last week, the Economist Intelligence Unit published its annual assessment of the best locations in the world to do business. The study, based on factors including policies towards enterprise and taxation, concludes that Britain's prospects for the next five years exceed those of the United States, Canada, Singapore, Germany and France. That is the environment and climate that the current Government have created.
  The Conservatives' policies are becoming clearer. They complain about the value of the pound, but then the Shadow Chancellor says:
  We have to get used to the idea that a strong currency is not a bad thing.
  They rule out joining a single currency for an indefinite period—even if joining is in the interests of manufacturing. They say that taxes should be lowered by billions, but they do not identify which elements of health or education should be cut. They say that the burden of regulation should be reduced, but the main burden they cite is the cost of paying a minimum wage and giving four weeks' paid leave a year. Decent standards are under

  181
  threat from the Conservatives. Of course, when they were in government, they pursued short-term objectives that led to recession twice during their period of office.
  In contrast, this Government are pursuing policies that will attract record levels of inward investment and produce rising exports and increasing productivity. Ours are policies for the long term—policies to challenge the status quo and ensure that we have economic stability.
  There are no quick fixes. Stability will take root over time. We need long-term solutions to tackle the long-standing problems that have held us back for too long. That is the goal that we have set ourselves in government, and it is a goal that we will achieve.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I begin by making a declaration of interest—I am a director of a number of public companies, some of which have manufacturing interests in the United Kingdom.
  As I said earlier to the Secretary of State, I found his speech unbelievably complacent. He tried to create a rather fictitious version, as I would have said in other circumstances, of the way in which he has moved from where he took over to where he is now. He insisted on using statistics gathered over an 18-year period, taking in two recessions—the last of which was many years ago—in order to try to demonstrate that the Government had taken over a difficult situation.
  The fact is that the Secretary of State and his Government took over the fastest growing major economy in western Europe. The United Kingdom was an extremely attractive place for manufacturing and other investment. Stable economic conditions were in place and we were committed not to return to boom and bust. However, conditions have since deteriorated.
  The background to the Secretary of State's speech today is that manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom is bleeding as it has not bled for the best part of 20 years. The principal cause of that is the high value of sterling against other currencies, particularly against the euro. In my opinion, the value of sterling is also too high against the dollar, as I shall go on to argue.
  Of course, the problems in manufacturing industry, like the problems in all economic policy, are not caused by a single factor. I strongly agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) about the way in which the Government have produced an excessive burden of taxation on business generally in this country, and the fact that they are introducing an ever-heavier regulatory burden. Both of those are damaging a great deal of the competitiveness of British industry. That is one of the changes that has come about with the change of Government. I spoke on both matters—making the same points, but not as eloquently as my hon. Friend—in the debate on the Finance Bill.
  However, the principal problem facing manufacturing industry in the UK, which is driving many good and competitive companies ever nearer to the wall, is the excessive strength of sterling on the foreign exchange markets. The problem is rarely dealt with as clearly as that by either Front Bench. There is a rather curious agreement—I shall not call it a conspiracy—between the two Front Benches that the strong pound should not be
  182
  referred to quite so clearly, when it is raised indelicately by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), by me, or even occasionally by a Liberal Democrat. Apparently, that is a problem on which too much stress should not be laid.
  The Government's motives for not speaking too much about the strong pound are that they like to pretend that, as we have just heard, all is now perfect in the economic world thanks to the brilliance of our present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues. I regret to say that I believe that there are those on the Opposition Benches who sometimes like to think that everything is going quite well for the British economy, thanks to the fact that we have not yet been able to join the single currency.
  Whatever one's views on that, if we have a floating exchange rate—on any view, we are living with a floating exchange rate now and will continue to do so, certainly until after the next general election—we must address rather more carefully the fact that the exchange rate has floated to a level that is positively damaging to the country. It is damaging to the competitiveness of most companies trying to sell goods and services into the European market in particular, and if we are not careful it will damage the very prospect of keeping Britain an attractive place in which to make things. That is an extremely serious issue which deserves to be tackled, not simply dismissed in some of the knock-about that passes for debate, especially on European affairs, in this country.
  There is a desire, on both sides, to dismiss the critics. Business men have repeatedly pointed out the effects of the strong pound on their business. The Government, led by the Prime Minister and supported by the Bank of England, insist on treating such criticisms as the whingeing of industrialists faced with strong currency conditions. It is implied that those of us who criticise the strong pound and the inactivity of the Government and the Bank somehow lack moral fibre and do not realise that robust and competitive industry has to take such problems on board.
  There is another response from this side of the House to the critics—
  Mr. Byers: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I have only 10 minutes to speak, and therefore do not believe that I should give way.
  Critics of the strong pound are told by many Opposition Members that the problem is the weak euro, not the strong pound. The relationship between the two currencies is thus said to be an entirely one-sided problem. That is a simplistic approach to the problems of the foreign exchange market. When any two currencies move, the reasons for that are to be found on both sides.
  The euro is weaker than it should be. It has progressed beyond the early stages, when it was a positive advantage to the European economy and enabled the German and Italian economies to avoid recession and begin to grow. The European central bank and European Governments should tackle the issue and try to accelerate the process of restructuring and reform, although those are currently progressing very quickly.
  However, we cannot so simply dismiss the genuine problems that the strength of sterling causes. We cannot simply wring our hands or adopt a state of denial as a

  183
  nation in the face of our business critics. I shall not go into the issue of Rover and BMW. I am very critical of BMW and I do not believe that it can be used as a clear illustration of the consequences of sterling's strength, although that strength undoubtedly contributed to the extent of the losses that BMW suffered. In fact, the case of Ford in Dagenham is extremely illustrative of the problem.
  Today, the Financial Times reports that Nick Scheele, the European chairman of Ford, is calling for the Government to make a more detailed and immediate commitment to joining the euro at the healthier exchange rate of DM2.50 to DM2.60 to the pound. Yesterday, before today's announcements of closures, Robert Radcliff, chairman of AGCO—which owns Massey Ferguson—warned that the Massey Ferguson plant in Coventry may have to close if the pound remains high and Britain fails to commit itself to the euro soon.
  I shall not refer to the remarks of Mr. Toyoda or the well-known opinions of the president of Sony. These are all high-profile manufacturers, who reflect the views of many people from traditional engineering and manufacturing industry in the midlands and elsewhere. One has only to consider the potteries to realise what is happening to industry there. We already know the consequences for the textile industry. Those companies are not simply whingeing.
  It is impossible for manufacturing industry to cope straightforwardly with a move from DM2.50, which was typical when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, to DM3.40 to the pound, which is sometimes the case now. The movement of the pound from its trough in 1995 to its peak on 3 May is 37 per cent. It is no good telling people that they should respond with higher productivity to such a rapid move in their competitive position.
  Instead of simply saying, "This is no problem of ours," the Government should do two things. First, they should have a tight fiscal policy to make it easier for the Bank not to have to continue to raise rates. Having committed themselves vaguely in the Budget to going beyond the tightness of the first two years, and given the Prime Minister's recklessness on David Frost's couch, which committed us to so much spending in advance, this year's comprehensive spending review will have to be very tight indeed.
  The Bank must accept that the deflationary consequences of sterling at its current level are severe, despite the fact that our growth is below the European average. The euro has weakened because growth in Europe is weak compared with America's runaway economy. However, we do not have America's runaway economy, although we do have high interest rates and we do have a strong pound. It is time that the Bank, which does not talk about such matters—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is time limited.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: In the light of recent developments in the motor industry, especially at Longbridge and Rover, it is important that I make a brief contribution. I am pleased that I have been
  184
  called several times to speak on those matters, but before I make some general comments on the manufacturing issues that arise from them, I must pay tribute to Labour Members with constituencies in the west midlands. They have participated greatly throughout those discussions, they have been tremendously active and they have given enormous support.
  I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I hope that that does not embarrass him too much, but he is a member of the Rover taskforce and has played a positive and constructive role in it. It is important to acknowledge that his approach has moved beyond the petty politics in which Opposition Front Benchers sometimes indulge on those issues, which have often been talked about as Longbridge matters. They are not; they have affected all Rover plants, whether at Solihull, Cowley in Oxford, Swindon or the research and development centre at Gaydon. It is important to place that on record because much has been said about what will happen at Longbridge with Phoenix, but there is a guarantee that staffing levels at Cowley—on which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), has been active—will be maintained when production of the Rover 75 moves from Oxford to Longbridge.
  I shall comment on three matters that arise from the Rover experience. The first is partnership. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said much about burdens on business and excessive regulation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the good point that when the Conservatives talk about that, they are referring to people's rights at work. He referred to parental leave in particular. I want to mention another set of rights that are especially pertinent to the Rover saga, because the hon. Lady criticised the European works council directive as an excessive burden on business. In fact, in this country, even under the improvements that the Government have introduced, it is simply easier not to consult workers about their future; sacking them is often easier than in other parts of Europe. The Conservative approach would weaken those protections still further.
  The extent to which the trade unions in the Rover saga were able to exert any leverage over the past few weeks related to the improvements that the Government made to the TUPE regulations, which would be weakened by the Conservatives. We must be aware that there will be a greater chance that problems similar to those at Rover will arise if the Conservatives get their way on employee protection.
  It is important to pay tribute to the trade unions in the Rover saga for playing an exceptional and positive partnership role. They have been actively involved in the Phoenix project, and I am very proud that it will lead to one of the biggest ever employee stakeholdings in a major company in this country. That is a positive step forward and Opposition Members should learn the lesson that consultation—the involvement of the work force—is not the foe of business; it is very often its friend.
  The second issue is that it is sometimes suggested that there is a conflict between our traditional manufacturing industries and the industries we look to for the future. I think that the Rover saga has shown that there is not, and cannot be, an "either/or" in a manufacturing country such as the United Kingdom. That is why it was right to stand by Rover and its employees, and right for the

  185
  Government to help to facilitate the deal that was finally reached with Phoenix; but it was also right to establish a taskforce with the aim of diversifying and modernising the regional economy.
  The taskforce produced clear and specific recommendations. Even in the area surrounding the Longbridge plant, it was suggested that it would be possible to create a high-technology corridor that would not be separate from the motor or automotive industry, but would build on its strengths and also build bridges to the high-tech industries of the future. Yesterday's announcement about Marconi is a further example of that forward-looking approach.
  Thirdly, I want to say something about the exchange rate and the role of our banking system. Does anyone who speaks to manufacturing exporters, particularly those who wish to export to Europe, know about the problems caused by the relative strengths of the pound and the euro? Real damage is being inflicted. Although some firms—often they are the smaller firms—do all that we ask of them in terms of raising productivity and improving procedures, if productivity increases are then wiped out by fluctuations in the exchange rate those firms will still face problems, however forward looking and productive they may be.
  There are no easy answers. Certainly, the answer does not lie in encouraging the idea that the way out is ruling out closer co-operation with the euro, thereby creating the impression that sterling can be the ultimate hedge currency of the future. That will make the situation worse, not better. We must, however, deal with the problem involving the banks.
  Increasingly, multinational companies insist that their suppliers in the motor industry and elsewhere enter into contracts involving euros, and do their business in euros. That is understandable, and it accords with the way in which such companies work. Incidentally, it is also why much of what is said by the Opposition is so irrelevant to their needs. Is it right, however, for the risks associated with such transactions to fall, as they all too often do, on the manufacturers involved—for instance, components firms?
  Perhaps there is a lesson for the banks. Perhaps they should consider operating in euros when negotiating with manufacturers. If we are looking to the strength of our manufacturing and components sectors, perhaps the risks can be shared. If they are not shared, there will be consequences not just for small firms, but for our manufacturing sector as a whole—and that means consequences for our economy as a whole, which will affect our financial sector as well as our manufacturing sector.
  I hope that the banks will think about how they can play a more proactive role in helping firms through the problems that they are experiencing with the exchange rate. I think that if the approach is right, some of the more forward-looking financial institutions may respond. The Rover taskforce has already produced forward-looking ideas about how banks and financial institutions could involve themselves with the problems—hopefully, they will not be so great now that Phoenix is taking over—that are likely to occur in the components sector following massive shocks to its orders as a result of the winding down of Rover orders. I think that we can build on the
  186
  work produced by the taskforce partnership—facilitated and encouraged by the Government—and apply it more generally.
  For years this country had a bank that was not independent, while Germany had a bank that was independent. Let us consider the way in which the two institutions operated and their relationships with regions and industry. The independent German Bundesbank was much more inter-dependent with the needs of industry than our non-independent Bank. We now have an independent Bank; giving it independence was exactly the right thing to do. We need to talk with the Bank about how its structure can link much more naturally and exactly with our industrial regions because they are inter-dependent in economic terms. Structurally, changes could be made to allow that to happen.
  I do not want to get to a stage where there are problems—perhaps such as those at Rover, or other problems—and we need to go to the banks saying, "How can you help?" I want the institutions and culture to be in place, with the banks coming forward and saying, "How can we help? It is our problem. We know about it and we are involved." We need to think more creatively about how to reform our banking system to reflect that.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I came to the debate at only a few minutes' notice because the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who speaks on trade and industry matters, has been taken ill. He had to go to hospital with her immediately before the start of the debate. If my speech is a little rough around the edges—if no less passionate for all that—I hope that the House will excuse me and understand my hon. Friend's situation. Later, I have to go to the Confederation of British Industry. To make that appointment and to do a couple of other things, I may need to leave before the end of the debate. I hope that the House will excuse me in the circumstances.
  As Conservative Front Benchers have argued, a wide range of issues is undoubtedly hitting industry at the moment. Some of them relate to burdens that the Government have introduced.
  Some of those burdens, as the Secretary of State argued, are legitimate. Only a handful of businesses sought to avoid them in the past, but they were wrong to do so. It is right to seek to ensure that people are paid at least a floor basic minimum wage and floor basic holiday entitlements. Although they are undoubtedly burdens, most businesses always took them on. If all businesses have to take them on, responsible employers will feel that all businesses will fight on a far fairer basis.
  There are burdens that should not have been imposed. We argued that paying the working families tax credit through employers and payrolls was a burden that was not right for business. We said that the principle that the Government were trying to extend was right, but not the mechanism. We note that the Chancellor has—almost before the thing is up and running—already announced that that process will end. He has acknowledged the problem.
  As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has said, the extraordinary thing about the debate is that those on the Front Benches skirt around—or avoid altogether in the case of the Conservative

  187
  Front-Bench team—the issue that is really hurting manufacturing. It is the case, as Ministers argue, that much of the economy in Britain is doing well; there is no doubt about that. It has been doing well for some time and it continues to do so, but the sectors that are being hit are those that rely on a competitive exchange rate: those involved in manufacturing and in basic resources.
  Those sectors include large industries such as the English china clay industry in my constituency. It is in a highly competitive environment, selling a product that is matched by others throughout the world, although perhaps not quite at the same high quality. However, the raw material is sold by many. Price is absolute for such industries, yet they have been hit by the exchange rate change.
  Small businesses in my constituency, such as those owned by Svedala, which manufactures pumping equipment, are also being hit. Jobs are being lost. The problem involves Sweden and South Africa, too, to take examples outside the euro. It is not simply a euro exchange rate problem. Parent companies are transferring jobs out because they simply cannot make it pay to manufacture in this country, although Svedala, the parent company, acknowledges that, in Charlestown, it has the highest-quality plant and comparable, if not better, rates of productivity.
  Those are not the issues. The issue is the sterling exchange rate, yet next to nothing is said on that by Conservative Front Benchers because they have no solution to offer. They have ruled out the one thing that might make a difference in the long run, which is to take away most of the problems for most of our trade, which are to do with exchange rate fluctuation, by looking towards the euro.
  Conservative Front Benchers have also ruled out even the types of tools used by previous Chancellors of the Exchequer to take on the exchange rate, because they have a bizarre fantasy of being able to increase expenditure while cutting taxes. Such a combination would of course only help to make the problem worse—by running up huge deficits and further stoking the economy. Eventually, such a policy would lead to a crunch, when it became apparent that the figures did not add up.
  Government Front Benchers also have not addressed the entry issue, because they will not deal with the one measurable, hard condition for entry—a competitive exchange rate. They are afraid that they might get caught out on the euro debate by mentioning measurable criteria, which they think could eventually prevent the Chancellor from announcing that all is well and that we should join. Ministers will go to any length—at least on this side of a general election—to avoid that debate. However, the cost of avoiding it is being paid in the jobs that are now haemorrhaging from manufacturing industry.
  Not only jobs are being lost; whole businesses, and parts of businesses, are going bust. They will not return, as we know only too well from the two previous occasions—in the early 1980s, and in the early 1990s—when high exchange rates knocked out some of our businesses. Only the situation in the very early 1980s was at all comparable to the present one, and the then Conservative Government's response to it was precisely
  188
  the same as the current Labour Administration's response now—to say, "We cannot buck the markets. The markets are king, and we cannot take them on."
  Eventually, however, the early-1980s currency situation was reversed, as always happens in speculative markets. Sentiment changed and—hallelujah!—the pound decreased in value. The only problem was that businesses were permanently lost, as were investment opportunities and an opportunity to take an industrial lead in many sectors. Hon. Members have already mentioned some of the businesses that simply no longer operate in the United Kingdom.
  Some people proudly wear on their lapel a little gold pound badge. The irony is that they are the ones who are arguing that the high pound demonstrates sterling's success and proves that we should never join the euro. Previously, precisely the same people argued that we had to leave the exchange rate mechanism, which locked the pound into a fixed relationship with permanently high currencies. Nevertheless, along came white Wednesday and—hallelujah!—the pound fell.
  The truth is that those who adopt the little gold lapel badge want to lock us into being the tail on the dog, endlessly wagging one way and then the other. Nevertheless, economically, we are attached to the dog. We cannot escape the fact that, particularly for manufacturing industry, Europe is our market; that every exchange rate fluctuation will hit our industries; or that such fluctuations will lead to boom followed by bust followed by boom. Those people cannot acknowledge that avoiding such fluctuations and cycles is the fundamental reason for seeking to be within the shelter of the euro. If one has to be attached to the dog, it is far better to be in the brain than knocking about as part of the tail.
  We also hear both Conservative and Government Front Benchers argue that sterling's strength is due to the euro, not to sterling. They say that sterling's exchange rate demonstrates its strength, and that, if anyone needs to sort out their house, it is those who are in the eurozone. That may or may not be true. However, a few years ago, when the Federal Reserve chairman was approached by European countries complaining about the dollar's weakness and the consequent damaging effects on the European economy, he said, "It may be our dollar, but it's your problem." There is a precise parallel there in sterling's high value.
  The Engineering Employers Federation spells out the situation very well in its press release, which states:
  Although output has increased, market share continues to be lost.
  Export orders continued to fall for the thirteenth consecutive quarter. Export margins are at 25 year lows and imports continue to gain ground…The latest official figures show manufacturing investment was down 13 per cent. in 1999 quarter four on a year ago. The strength of sterling and the associated squeeze on margins and cash flow is forcing firms to adopt a short-term view…Productivity rising strongly in both manufacturing…and engineering…but this is being achieved entirely by cutting employment rather than through increased investment.
  Those improvements do not match the problems caused by the current exchange rate fluctuation. The briefing note also points out that the rate of increase in engineering production in western Europe in 1999 was double that in 1998, but British companies have been unable to exploit those opportunities, with engineering in Britain advancing in 1999 by only a third of the average increase for western Europe. Of course, our economy is broader than just the

  189
  great manufacturing industries, but the pain is hard in those industries and the consequences will be permanent if we do not seek to change things now.
  Manufacturing is not the only sector with problems. Farming, which we hear a lot about from the Conservative Front Bench, has been hit for six by exchange rate fluctuations, as has foreign tourism, which is a key industry in many Conservative seats, as in many Liberal Democrat seats. As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe has already pointed out, this is not simply an issue of the eurozone. The value of sterling has appreciated against all but four of the UK's top 30 trading partners. Switzerland, which is not in the euro, but is linked to Europe, is not suffering the same problems. South Korea, Australia, Malaysia and South Africa are all countries not locked into the euro, but sterling is appreciating against them. We are being hit for six in our markets around the world.
  The consequences are spelled out by people with the highest levels of experience on all sides.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are even at the wrong parity against the dollar? People tend to argue that there cannot be any great problem, because our parity against the dollar remains unchanged. The American economy is outperforming ours. Its growth outstrips the European average and we are growing below the European average. Remaining at parity with the dollar without matching the US performance puts us at a disadvantage that other European countries are not suffering.
  Mr. Taylor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. The real lesson is that exchange rates are determined by speculators. Provided that they bet the right way today, they will make their money today. An economy needs a stable exchange rate, but the speculators who dominate the market in sterling need movement. They are getting that movement and making money, but they are putting hundreds of thousands—potentially millions—out of work.
  The Financial Times on 5 May quoted Digby Jones of the CBI as saying that sterling was a major issue for tourism and farming, as well as manufacturing. He said:
  I talk to a lot of businesses, and a lot are taking decisions either to look elsewhere, or not to do it at all…British companies are postponing investment projects or locating them in the euro-zone because of the strength of sterling.
  On the other side, the comments of TUC general secretary John Monks have been echoed by many trade union leaders. On 4 May, he said:
  the problems caused by the overvalued pound and the impact it is now having on manufacturing, exporters and the tourist trade will not go away. It cannot be right that neither the Government nor the Bank of England will take any responsibility for the exchange rate.
  I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) about the rescue bid for Rover and the Phoenix consortium, but there is no doubt that John Towers would find it far easier to make a success of the company if we restored a competitive exchange rate. He was reported on 12 May as saying so in very strong terms.
  190
  In the past few days, a newspaper report said:
  Nissan is threatening to switch production of its next Micra car away from the UK, raising the spectre of thousands more job losses in the battered motor industry.
  The Japanese company, like other manufacturers, has found its profits savaged by the high value of the pound.
  The most productive and efficient car plant in Europe cannot return a profit on low-margin smaller cars because it is impossible to outweigh the uncompetitive exchange rate through productivity. We live in a competitive environment, where every other country in the world is also doing its best to achieve maximum productivity.
  Nick Reilly, the chairman and managing director of Vauxhall Motors and head of the CBI's economic affairs committee, has blamed the pound's strength for the troubles experienced by many companies. On 26 April, the Press Association reported him as saying:
  We think there are sure signs of manufacturing slipping back into a recession.
  In my part of the world, Toshiba has been questioned about rumours that it may halt production at its television factory in Plymouth. A spokesman said that there were no current plans to do so, but added that sterling's continued strength was
  almost forcing us to close it.
  These are terrible times for some of the most efficient businesses in the world. They have a lot of money to invest as long as they believe that there is chance of operating competitively in the reasonably near future. That is where there is a huge question mark over the policies of those on the Labour and Conservative Front Benches. The Conservatives want to postpone any decision on euro entry for five years. I do not know what "Save the Pound" means if they want to save it for five years. Either they want to save the pound or they want to think about it in five years. The Conservatives are guilty of exaggerating their position. They want to set aside any question of tackling the problems for five years, but the Government are also refusing to engage in the debate or take any material action.
  The Conservative Front Bench position is somewhat confused. On 9 May, the shadow Chancellor was reported as saying:
  We have to get used to the fact that a strong currency is not a bad thing. It is a reflection of a strong economy.
  The former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, clearly does not agree with that and it is questionable whether his Front-Bench colleagues do either. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has said:
  Matters have been made worse by the weak euro vis-a-vis the pound.
  It does not sound as though he thinks that it is a success story. It sounds as though he would like something done about it. He went on to say:
  The latter's strength against the euro and the far eastern currencies—
  interestingly acknowledging that there is a wider issue—
  will make it that much more difficult for our shipbuilding companies to obtain orders.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 4 April 2000; Vol. 347, c. 169WH.]
  Even the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asked in January what representations the Secretary of State makes on behalf of key industries and

  191
  manufacturers in relation to the high pound. It is just as well that there is some confusion on the Conservative Front Bench, because the shadow Chancellor is wrong. Almost nobody in business or in the wider economy believes that we should regard the high pound as a mark of our success.
  The Government are little better. They have acknowledged the problem since 1997. In July 1997, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), said:
  The Government share the anxieties about the exchange rate, but there are no short-term fixes.
  In March this year, the Prime Minister said:
  I too know the real problems the level of the pound causes.
  In May, we were told in the Financial Times:
  The Chancellor understood the "great difficulties" this was causing, particularly for manufacturing, but ruled out a "short-term fix".
  I understand that, tonight, the Prime Minister will again acknowledge the problems of a high pound, but he has come up with a new argument. Now he says that doing anything about it would risk a return to instability in the economy. The irony of that is that sterling exchange rates is the one area in which there is instability in the economy. That instability is the cause of the problem.
  I also notice that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he understood the difficulties and confirmed that the exchange rate must be part of the tests for the conditions of entry. That is a breakthrough, because we have never been able to get such a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is good to know that the Government believe that, if we join the single currency, it should be at a competitive rate. The question is what they will do about it, and that is the issue that Liberal Democrats have sought to address.
  Britain could have committed to joining the euro in 1997. When the first wave of members was announced, the conditions, including the exchange rate—then at DM2.78—were good for Britain. However, that opportunity has been missed. Now, we need an active strategy for reaching the point at which we could reasonably put the issue to the British electorate on terms that would allow British manufacturing industry to survive. Sterling is some 13 per cent. above the DM2.95 central rate when we were in the European monetary system, 21 per cent. above the rate at which the markets thought we were over-valued when we were ejected from the EMS, and some 52 per cent. above the rate of DM2.21 when the pound sank to its low in November 1995.
  Things could be done to solve the problem. The most immediate action that the Government could take, without needing any change of policy and in line with the principles they have already announced, would be to say that they are actively looking to work towards the exchange rate conditions in which Britain could seek to join. They say that they want to allow the British people to make the decision and that they want to allow manufacturing to survive. The simple announcement of active progress and an indication of the exchange rate level they sought would in itself move sentiment in the market. We have evidence for that, because it happened in every single European country as they moved towards membership of the single currency. It worked for them, and it could work for us.
  192
  Opportunities also exist for active intervention in the market, which would not risk losses but make a profit for the Government. The euro will not continue to fall indefinitely and the pound will not continue to go up indefinitely—if it does, we can write off manufacturing and much of the Government's economic policy—so if the Government chose to invest in European securities, they could buy them more cheaply. They would also make a profit in the long run and, in the mean time, that investment would help liquidity in the market.
  We set up a team of top economists to look at the issue. They did so, not as Liberal Democrats, but as people who share our concern about the problem. It should not be us who are doing that, because the Government should take a lead on the issue. In the mean time, as a result of the Government's sympathy with inaction, some 240,000 people have lost their jobs in manufacturing since the general election.
  6.3 pm
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: The nature of manufacturing in the UK is changing and, as a responsible Government, we need to change and to develop our policies if we are to maximise the benefit of our manufacturing sector. This Government work to encourage successful business start-ups and to increase the capacity of business, including small and medium enterprises. I shall talk about that sector, including the sharing of good practice, skill shortages, funding, regulation, and working in partnership with people and organisations in our communities.
  Enterprise and innovation are critical factors in the creation and growth of successful businesses. The pace of innovation in our knowledge-driven economy means that competitive advantage has to be refreshed constantly by businesses of all sizes across the range of business sectors. The DTI is working with intermediary organisations to bring about a step change in the level of enterprise and innovation in the UK economy, throughout the regions. It offers a range of targeted expenditure programmes to address cultural barriers to entrepreneurship and innovation, to provide support for start-ups and manufacturing SMEs, to promote the skills agenda and business best practice, and to facilitate a more effective exploitation of the knowledge base.
  In December 1998, the Department published a much welcomed White Paper, "Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy", which set out a clear agenda for strengthening the capabilities of the UK economy to meet the challenges of the 21st century. As a consequence, the Chancellor announced in the Budget last year the Government's intention to establish a new body, the Small Business Service, which would be especially designed to meet the needs of the smaller business.
  Last week, I met David Irwin, the new chief executive of the Small Business Service, and he confirmed that its objective was to act as a strong voice for small business at the heart of government and to improve the quality and coherence of delivery of Government support programmes for small businesses, ensuring that their needs are addressed. He also said that the issues raised by the business community included skill shortages, funding, sharing good practice and, to a lesser extent, regulation.
  The Government made a commitment in their manifesto to support small businesses by several innovative means, including statutory interest on late

  193
  payment of debts. That commitment was met when the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 came into force on 1 November 1998. Several targets in the public service agreement relate to the objective of promoting enterprise and increased productivity. In particular, the DTI is working towards securing an increase in the number of high-growth business start-ups; increasing the productivity and profitability of SMEs assisted by business link partnerships; showing year-by-year improvements in the quality of services under the Business Link brand; increasing to 1 million the number of UK SMEs wired up to the digital marketplace by 2002; and increasing by 50 per cent. the 1997–98 number of companies spun out by universities by 2001–02.
  It is crucial to provide locally delivered business support for SMEs. National, regional and sectoral strategies for competitiveness and economic development have to be backed by first-class business support services. Most of us are aware that Business Link is a national network of 85 local partnerships, which provides a simple route to information and advice for small businesses through a single point of access. Business link partnerships work closely with private sector sources of advice and services to improve the overall quality of help available to SMEs and to increase the market demand for such services. The network in England is now complete, with all businesses having access to the services provided.
  In October 1997, the then Minister with responsibility for small firms, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), launched "Enhanced Business Links—A Vision for the 21st Century", which focused on quality, customer service and continuous improvement and excellence. The document outlined 18 action points, 14 of which have now been completed, including the launch and delivery of the enterprise zone, which is a significant and important regional initiative.
  The Business Link vision was refreshed the year before last at the Business Link national conference, which identified six new challenges for implementation last year and this. Those challenges included building up, within three years, a high quality, customised advice service throughout England to support 10,000 high-growth start-ups a year; forging new partnerships, especially with the regional development agencies; using innovation and advanced techniques to satisfy rising customer expectations; preparing business links and SMEs for the opportunities of electronic commerce; getting to grips with brand managements; and recognising that continuous improvement must be a fact of everyday life. I would welcome a comment from my hon. Friend the Minister on how the Government have responded to those important challenges.
  Business finance is essential to the development and promotion of small manufacturing enterprises. In 1998, a very good innovation was launched that recognised the tendency for firms still to rely on debt finance when equity might better meet their needs. However, equity in smaller amounts could often be hard to source. That was a complaint that those of us who visited small companies often encountered. As a consequence, a new enterprise fund was established to provide flexible financial support for SMEs with growth potential. The enterprise fund is intended to stimulate and support partnerships with the private sector to improve the availability of venture capital for early-stage, high-technology firms, and I am
  194
  pleased to note that the venture capital available in the UK is at record levels. The fund will also deliver a more cost-effective small firms loan guarantee; invigorate local and regional provision of equity in smaller amounts to growing businesses; and allow finance providers to bid for support for new products that expand their activities into untried areas. This fund is worth about £160 million over three years from 1999 to 2002.
  There is an increasing premium from successful development and commercial exploitation of new technology. Thus, research and development play a vital role in enhancing company performance and promoting economic growth. I am aware that the Department of Trade and Industry is continuing to work closely with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue in examining new incentives to encourage United Kingdom SMEs to invest in R & D. I welcome especially the tax break that was announced, not only in this year's Budget but in last year's.
  Good engineering is based on good research, and research investment fell to an all-time low during the previous Administration. The Labour Government have met commitments with funds. During 1998–99, the comprehensive spending review announced a boost to investment in the science and engineering base of £1.4 billion over three years. Real-term increases in funding have gone to the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the six research councils. The joint infrastructure fund was created in partnership with the Wellcome Trust to address infrastructure problems in universities. These problems had been increasing over 20 years.
  The continuation of the joint research initiative was secured. Last but not least, funding was announced for a private finance initiative to provide super-computing services for academic research.
  I have discussed a range of services and support for the development of manufacturing in the United Kingdom. There is a passionate commitment to enable British companies to respond to a rapidly changing environment. Issues of funding and business development support have been tackled, but I remain deeply concerned that we are continuing to fail to attract sufficient individuals into manufacturing to meet sector demands. There are requirements not only for professional engineers but for technicians and skilled and semi-skilled workers.
  The previous Administration introduced the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in 1994. It is now acknowledged that the measure was so restrictive that only 42 orders have been exercised since the Bill's enactment. That has saved British industry about £40 million. The measure clearly failed in its objective to cut red tape. It was with great pleasure that I noted in the Queen's Speech this year that a better deregulation Bill would be introduced. I welcome the measure, which will enable better regulation to be delivered to British business. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
  6.13 pm
  Sir David Madel: I welcome this short debate, which is taking place at an appropriate time. Some sections of manufacturing industry are doing all right and others are not. As has been

  195
  said, many companies are struggling with the high value of the pound. As always in British industry, the picture is somewhat uneven. As the debate is short, I shall raise only one local and one national issue.
  In the Luton and south-Bedfordshire area, we are extremely pleased that Vauxhall will invest £162 million into my constituency and next-door constituencies. Nothing could be a better boost than the 500 new jobs that will be created as a result of the Vauxhall-Renault van deal. As one of the local Members in the area, it goes without saying—I shall say it again, anyway—that I appeal to Vauxhall to give priority, in placing people in the new jobs, to unemployed truck workers, who for years kept General Motors going by working with great skill and devotion in the now, alas, shut truck plant in Dunstable.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) for nodding in agreement. I think that he will agree with me also that GM remained in this country, when there was a great deal of trouble at Ellesmere Port and at Luton, because Dunstable was trouble-free in many ways. Whatever else GM thought about the United Kingdom, it knew that trucks were being turned out at Dunstable and that the work undertaken there reflected the highest skills.
  I do not want the Government to sit back and luxuriate against that background. Instead, I want them to do two things that will help us locally. First, I hope that the new investment will result in the creation of new supplier companies to the car industry locally. Some of these firms will be small, and I ask the Government to re-examine restrictions and red tape that hamper small businesses. I want new and small supplier companies to get started in the area that I represent as a result of Vauxhall's investment. Nothing hampers a small company from growing into a larger one more than some of the regulations and red tape that they now have to endure.
  Secondly, Dunstable has firms that supply cars to Vauxhall and to the car industry in the midlands and the north-east. We shall keep the jobs that they provide only if those firms can move their goods quickly out of Dunstable into the midlands and north-east, but the local road network is becoming steadily worse. I want the Department of Trade and Industry to elbow its way into the debate on where new roads should be built for industrial purposes. There is an unanswerable case on behalf of Dunstable for a new A5 bypass. That would make it easier for supplier firms in my constituency to move their goods quickly in a highly competitive industrial market, which will become even more competitive as time passes.
  My criticism of the Government's industrial policy is that sometimes the DTI leaves undone those things that it should do and engages in things that it should not do. Left undone is the provision of certain essential strategic industrial roads.
  A national issue is that we do not take enough pride in what our engineers have produced. Figures from Japanese industry show that more than half of all new patents taken out anywhere in the world are based on ideas that have originated from the UK. We should take immense pride in what we have done. However, we cannot sit back and think that all is well on the basis of what Japanese
  196
  industry has said. We have worsening shortage problems. We have a shortage of qualified engineers in systems engineering, aerospace engineering, automotive design engineering and electronic and software engineering. There is the perennial shortage of technicians. Alas, the number of students undertaking teacher training in science, technology and mathematics is falling.
  We should think carefully about the learning and skills councils that the Government are setting up. The evidence that the Engineering Employers Federation has given is as follows:
  Many employers are afraid that the proposed Learning Skills Councils will become supplier driven instead of demand led; that the employer work-based route will become even more subservient to the academic/qualification pathway than already exists.
  In tackling the problem of skill shortages, I ask the Government to reflect on the Learning and Skills Bill.
  Dot.com technologies, excellent and growing as they are, are not enough to sustain virtually full employment. They cannot do it all on their own. I am all for young people mastering the internet and technology, as so many of them do, but I wish that more of them would master one major European language as well. The languages that young people learn at school and university will do so much in future to help industry export to the critical European market.
  I end my speech with one question for the Government. The latest inflation report overview from the Bank of England states:
  The paramount objective of UK monetary policy is to meet the 2½% inflation target.
  Is that enough after three years? Should not the paramount objective of UK monetary policy now be a strengthened industrial base? The Bank of England statement is all right as far as it goes, but in the year 2000 it is not wide enough, and it is not doing enough to create more jobs in industry, to create more investment in industry and to make the UK once again a powerful industrial base.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I begin by noting that two pieces of good news have emerged recently. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made an announcement today that will reassure many people in the aircraft industry around the country. Many of my constituents work at the Rolls Royce plant in Coventry, and others work in the supply side of the industry. My right hon. Friend's announcement will be very important for them.
  Yesterday's announcement by Marconi is the other piece of good news, especially for Coventry which, like other cities, suffered from the recessions experienced during the years of the previous Government. However, the Marconi announcement owed a lot to the endeavours of the local authority—the leader of the council went so far as to go to America to conduct negotiations. Marconi takes an interest in the education system in Coventry and, as a result, the firm knows that the engineers that it will need in the future will be produced. The firm also contributes to social programmes, and Coventry has benefited from that too.
  I was a little alarmed by an earlier intervention about Massey Ferguson, and it would be remiss of me not to mention it. Although we must not be too alarmist about the matter, it is true that Massey Ferguson depends on

  197
  exports and that those exports are affected by the strength of the pound. There is no doubt that the strength of the pound is important, but it should not be assumed that Massey Ferguson will pull out of Coventry. The company's labour force deserves a tribute: over the years, many jobs have been lost, but the workers who have remained have increased their productivity and have accommodated changes in management structures and techniques.
  I hope that the Government will take note of my remarks with regard to Massey Ferguson, and also accept that the strength of the pound was a major factor—if not the decisive one—in what happened recently with Rover. I am a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and we heard much evidence to that effect.
  I have contact with businesses small and large, and there is no denying that the strength of the pound is a problem. The Government must think seriously about it, although I note that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), has said that the strength of the pound demonstrates that the economy is very healthy. That may be true, but we must not allow it to destroy the economy. I am not an economist, but my constituents are worried about these matters, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider them.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) opened the debate by suggesting that, because members of the Government Front Bench have no experience of business, that somehow disqualifies them from being members of the Government, or that they are incompetent. However, I remind the hon. Lady that one does not have to be able to drive a car to understand traffic regulations or the rules of the road. I think that the hon. Lady should think seriously about that.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke about the negotiations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had conducted, and she acknowledged that over the years I had gained some experience of industrial relations. I can tell her that negotiators are only as good as the information that they get from each other. They also have to rely on the integrity of their opponents.
  If there is a loss of trust, negotiations are impossible and no agreement can be reached. That is an elementary truth but, in all negotiations, circumstances can change from time to time. In negotiations about job numbers, for instance, no employer will say that any job will last for ever, and a similar approach applies to all negotiations, including those between companies.
  All the evidence gathered by the Select Committee made it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not know what BMW had in mind for Rover. People have said that he should have known, but it must be remembered that the trade unions were caught off balance too. However, what is important is that Rover starts to go from strength to strength. We must stop talking down the company's prospects, and start giving all the support that we can to the new company that has taken over the business.
  Mr. Bercow: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's industrial experience, but does he accept that the Government continually put out to consultation proposals
  198
  that flow from the European Union, yet allow small businesses only six weeks to offer a response? Is not that patently inadequate?
  Mr. Cunningham: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has no industrial experience and who cannot know anything about what happens in negotiations. He cannot know either how long it takes for small businesses to respond adequately to consultation. In short, I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman really knows what he is talking about.
  The Opposition have spoken about a burden of £10 billion that has been imposed on business as a result of regulation. However, when it is broken down, that total covers the costs incurred when employees take time off for hospital appointments, for example, or for holidays. Those costs represent part of the normal overheads of business.
  The Opposition must get their act together if they want to move into the enterprise culture. When it comes to trade and industry, the Government have no need to take any lessons from Opposition Members who have no great experience in such matters. They have not run much in the way of business, and so cannot be too critical of other people.
  I know that some of my colleagues have waited two or three hours to contribute to the debate, so I shall end by urging the Government to consider the effect that the strong pound is having on this country's manufacturing base. That effect is especially evident in the west midlands and Coventry.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I start by expressing my long-held view that manufacturing industry is the only sustainable, non-inflationary source of economic growth. Governments or political parties neglect or ignore that fact at their peril.
  Most of the Macclesfield borough is in my constituency, and a study published over the weekend showed that a higher proportion of the major businesses there make a profit than in any other town or city in the northern half of the United Kingdom. The tables in the report, which was compiled by the business information service Dun and Bradstreet, are based on the country's 50,000 largest businesses, and cover 162 towns and cities across Britain.
  I am delighted that Macclesfield should be found to be the most successful northern town, and that it came 12th in the table of the top 20 towns in the United Kingdom. However, although large businesses such as Astra Zeneca and British Aerospace Systems Regional Aircraft plc contribute to that success, there are many small and medium-sized businesses in the area. They include Spectus plc, Gradus Ltd., Rosslab Ltd., County Labels Ltd., Whitaker Technical Plastics Ltd., Statiflo Ltd., Flock Print Ltd. and Henry and Leigh Slater Ltd. They are some of the range of businesses that contribute to the success of the area that I represent. I am very proud of their achievements too.
  In July, I will have the important and pleasant task of presenting an Investor in People award to an excellent company called Microshape, which has been based in my Macclesfield constituency since 1993. Microshape is one such success story, having brilliantly bridged the yawning

  199
  gap between innovation and marketing. I t is a specialist extrusion tooling manufacturer—of PVC windows and doors—for the plastics industry. It is the United Kingdom's leading supplier of extrusion tooling. The company designs, manufactures and commissions extrusion tools. There are very few independent extrusion toolmakers, as the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) knows well, so Microshape has a virtual niche market. The majority of its competitors are in Germany and Austria.
  In the past year, Microshape has invested £500,000 on improved machinery to automate the manufacturing process. As a result of its growth, the company is due to relocate to new purpose-built premises in Macclesfield. That represents an opportunity for a company to create a world-class environment, for the benefit of employees and customers alike. I believe that the future of Microshape now looks brighter than at any time in the past.
  I say that not to give the Government a pat on the back. Macclesfield, after all, is represented by a Conservative and independent Member of Parliament and Conservatives have had overall control of the council, even through the Conservative party's bleak times.
  There were certainly heavy job losses in manufacturing under the previous Government, from 1979 to 1997. However, in May 1997, despite sometimes avoiding admitting it, the new Government inherited low inflation and the lowest unemployment rate of the major European Union states. I say that not just as a Conservative—it was said by someone who was not a particular supporter of the Conservative party. Adair Turner, the former head of the Confederation of British Industry, said in September 1999:
  Like the US, but unlike some other European countries, we now achieve low unemployment with minimal inflationary pressure…this reflects the impact of the profound Labour market liberalisation introduced by the previous Government in the eighties and early nineties.
  We can bandy statistics across the Chamber, but in the previous Parliament, from 1992 to 1997, the number of people employed in manufacturing rose by some 70,000. Under Labour, the net loss of manufacturing jobs stands, after three years, at 206,000.
  This country has had a long history and a proud tradition of inventiveness and enterprise. To the present day, we enjoy a wealth of innovation and talent. Although the UK has the innovation and enterprise required to stimulate and sustain economic growth, a key link is broken then with the further development and marketing stages that I believe are vital for a manufacturing success story. After all, the second report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology states:
  The major part of university and public sector activity is research, directed at acquiring knowledge. The major part of industrial activity is development, directed at achieving what the market wants.
  That is where I believe that we fall down and squander our talents and opportunities. The UK's science base is good; it produces more innovative ideas than are taken up commercially. The UK is strong in scientific invention, but weak at applying and exploiting inventions and enterprise in a marketable form.
  200
  I turn now to the clothing and textiles industry, which I know well. We appear to have a death wish as far as manufacturing is concerned. Have successive Governments ever been able to understand the worn-out cliché "being competitive"? With the retail chain stores looking for price reductions year on year, and taking into consideration the balance sheets of all the suppliers to the retail outlets, it is my view that the writing has been on the wall for the past 18 or 20 years.
  In Germany, firms can borrow money at one third of the price that applies in the United Kingdom, and they have three times as long to pay it back. In addition, retail stores in this country are looking for a 320 per cent. mark up on the goods that they purchase from their suppliers.
  The continuous drain on retail companies competing against each other at lower and lower prices has virtually destroyed the clothing and textiles industry in the UK.
  Mr. John Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Winterton: I am afraid not, because I do not have the time.
  I may be unpopular with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when I say that the demands of the City for companies to produce dividends that are impossible to achieve is a contributory factor.
  As with all of manufacturing, matters have not always been helped by the Government. A lack of joined-up government between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence has let down textile producers in relation to Her Majesty's Government in sourcing goods.
  Waterproof jackets costing a total of £1 million have been purchased for our Navy from Germany. Why? There are good suppliers in this country. A further £6.5 million worth of combat kit for the Army was also purchased in Germany, putting 100 jobs at risk in Cumbernauld. Some 120,000 camouflage jackets and trousers were purchased from Belgium. Why, when we have super, excellent manufacturers in this country? Army boots were ordered from Brazil, forcing the closure of the last footwear factory in Wales, with the loss of 65 jobs. The Government are—if I may be excused for using this phrase—putting the boot into our textiles industry.
  I could also refer to the climate change levy, which will add tremendous costs to industry. It seems, from time to time, that the Government make it harder for industry to be competitive. The Engineering Employers Federation is concerned that there are many companies outside the potential scope for energy efficiency agreements, whose extra costs due to the levy will far exceed their small rebate on national insurance.
  The EEF believes that extending negotiated agreements, to which I hope that the Minister will refer, is much more likely to secure a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than leaving companies to respond to a tax price signal.
  My interest in manufacturing is long established. I have, in my party, been one of the very few people who has stood up for this vital sector—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Ottaway.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: Time is short, so I shall not dwell too long on the speeches, other than to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has demonstrated how well Macclesfield is served by its Conservative and independent Member of Parliament.
  The opening speeches in the debate could not have provided a sharper contrast. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) showed, with flair and imagination, why Britain has slipped in the international competitiveness league, to such an extent that Government supporters actually asked her what they should be doing. What a contrast that was with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He repeated endlessly that he would take no lectures from anybody, and seemed proud of the extra burden of regulation that he has imposed on Britain's industry. At least he had the decency to admit that he had read our "Commonsense Revolution".
  I should like to dwell on the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), who unfortunately is not here. I did not agree much with what he said, apart from the compliments that he paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I see that the hon. Gentleman is coming into the Chamber. Let me say to him that despite not agreeing with much of what he said, we respect the sincerity with which he made his speech and his commitment to his constituency.
  The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) was right to emphasise the support for small business—in particular, the enterprise zones and business links. I hope that she recalls that they were both Conservative ideas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) emphasised the importance of transport to the economy.
  The charge against the present Government is that during their three years in office they have failed British industry, in particular manufacturing, and much of the blame must lie with the DTI and the Treasury. In 1997 Labour's manifesto said:
  we will…promote dynamic and competitive business and industry at home and abroad.
  It is our case that they have not only failed to do so, but have made matters worse.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in a telling speech, commented on the fact that the Government had inherited a golden economic legacy of sustainable growth, low inflation and falling unemployment. Manufacturing industry was prospering after years of decline. Consecutive Conservative Governments had provided a competitive environment for UK manufacturers through measures such as trade union reform, low taxation and light regulation.
  Since then Labour has slowly squandered its legacy. Business has become disillusioned. The other day the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said:
  The rhetoric is good, but the Government seems to be unaware that its actions seem to be working against creating a better climate for business.
  202
  We have a Government who are clearly not at ease with themselves. They talk the language of a new economy, but their instincts lie in the other direction. A commentator recently likened them to religious converts who sang the hymns but did not know what the words meant. They talk right, but they act left. They do their best to obscure the truth. The red book is indecipherable. Budget commentators refuse to be drawn into instant comment so that they can work out what the Chancellor has said.
  But as the mirrors are put back into storage, as the smoke drifts away, the true picture begins to emerge. Yes, they have cut the headline rate of corporation tax to 30 per cent. Yes, they have cut it to 20 per cent. for small businesses. But it is the usual story: they are the headlines; the underlying truth is very different.
  Rover is still in difficulties. Car production at Dagenham is ending. Component industries are under threat. In my Croydon constituency yesterday Avon, the tyre maker, announced 150 redundancies on the back of cancelled contracts from Rover and Ford. Strong communities face bleak futures.
  Over the last three years more than 200,000 jobs have been lost in British manufacturing. It is struggling. Exporters are hit. Investment is threatened. Profit margins are shrinking. Whatever happened to that election pledge to promote competitive business? Their attack on industry has been savage.
  Company pension funds have been hit, with firms such as Tesco having to go to their employees for bigger contributions. The Government changed the system for advance payment of corporation tax, a measure costing billions. Road fuel duties are hitting profits. So are stamp duty rises. The windfall tax on privatised utilities was mean and vindictive. The climate change levy will—another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield—impose a huge increase in taxation on manufacturing. The tax will harm energy-intensive businesses, principally manufacturers. Research indicates that it will destroy 150,000 jobs over the next decade.
  Just when Britain is leading the high-tech race to make industry more competitive the Government introduce IR35, a hard-hitting tax on the self-employed, driving our best people overseas. IT consultant Steven Weaver writes:
  I am ashamed to say that I voted for this business hostile Government…I have no wish to remain in a country that punishes enterprise instead of encouraging it. My company turned down six months' further work in the UK implementing e-commerce systems for our major telecommunications company, entirely because of IR35.
  And—can you believe it, Mr. Deputy Speaker?—just as the exodus is starting, the Department for Education and Employment announces a fast-track work permit route because—surprise, surprise—it has discovered that there is a skill shortage in the IT sector.
  The Budget a few weeks ago hit the aggregates and construction industry. The changes to double taxation relief will cost manufacturers and other British companies that invest abroad billions a year. They will make Britain one of the least attractive locations for international companies seeking to relocate. Is that what the Government meant when they said that they would
  promote…industry at home and abroad?

  203
  It comes as no surprise that Sir Clive Thompson, the CBI President, has said:
  The Government has introduced a series of well-camouflaged taxes which has put the tax burden firmly on to business. Changes by the Chancellor since 1997 will push up business taxation by almost £5 billion a year for the first five years of the Labour Government.
  He made that comment before hearing the Prime Minister's speech to the CBI tonight. That comes on top of the £5 billion a year in new red tape with which businesses are having to contend.
  The British Chambers of Commerce declared that Labour's honeymoon with business was over. Its chief executive said:
  I think business attitudes may well have reached a watershed. There is growing disillusionment with this Government's pro-business credentials. There is a feeling that they are not hearing us. They listen but do not hear…It is becoming incredibly difficult for business to match the rhetoric to the reality.
  It is no wonder that Lord Haskins, Labour's own business guru, said:
  entrepreneurs are being distracted from running and growing their businesses by the cumulative burden of taxation and regulation.
  For the last seven years we have had a prolonged period of economic stability, with steady growth and low inflation. Over the last three years the economy has continued to perform well. That has to be welcomed on all sides of the House. But the Government should not fall into the trap of thinking that they invented economic growth. It began in 1992, and unemployment started falling in 1993. That is why in 1997 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an organisation that Labour was keen on quoting when in opposition, said:
  the prospects for obtaining sustained output, growth and low inflation are the best in 30 years.
  That is the situation that Labour inherited.
  But the House should be quite clear that below the surface the sharks are circling. The tax and regulatory burden is hurting. The problems are a symptom of the Government's failure to understand the challenges of the global economy. They are leading us in the wrong direction.
  In the last Budget, the Chancellor started taking risks. Savings have collapsed. The International Monetary Fund, the Institute of Directors and the CBI have all predicted that the Chancellor's latest Budget will put further pressure on interest rates. That is bound to affect Britain's competitiveness.
  To cope with this, Britain is faced with a clear choice. We can either follow the European model of higher taxation and greater regulation or head in the direction of lower taxation and a smaller regulatory burden, as found in Asia and the United States. Given the growth of global competitive pressures, the answer is—to this party at least—self-evident.
  204
  But what surprises us most is that, given our successful economy, the Government are going in the opposite direction. The tax burden has risen by 2 per cent. since 1997. Red tape is endangering our competitive position. The Government are going in the wrong direction now, as they did in the past. In opposition, they opposed every privatisation, even though they now admit that we were right. However, even in government their limited vision shows.
  The lack of industrial strategy is evident. Subsidy is available for coal, but not for shipbuilding; it may be available for cars. We must have a strategy based on a proper understanding of the global economy. We need to be agile, quick on our feet and able to adapt to world conditions, as and when they develop.
  Competitiveness is everything, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) demonstrated in the last Parliament. But the Government have a problem: they are in hock to the unions and they cannot break out. In The Times last Thursday, under the headline "Unions plot to hijack Labour policy", there appeared a report that began:
  Britain's seven biggest trade unions have joined forces in a concerted attempt to dictate policy to Tony Blair on manufacturing industry.
  He who pays the piper calls the tune. The Government are stuck with it. Nothing better illustrates why they talk right, but act left.
  The Government should listen to John Edmonds, the leader of the GMB. He said:
  Thousands of jobs are being lost every week in the very heartland areas that the Labour Party is supposed to be cultivating in the run up to the next election … Tony Blair should wake up and smell the coffee.
  What are they saying in Labour's heartlands—in a typical constituency, such as Sedgefield? An article about the Newton Aycliffe working men's club stated:
  Eddie Cadd, 61, a retired factory worker, said that new Labour's priorities since 1997 had been "all wrong…People here are worried about their jobs, about their pensions, about the things that really matter. But all he cares about—
  That is the Prime Minister—
  are things like foxhunting, devolution and abolishing the House of Lords. What difference does that make to us?"
  Another person at the club said:
  All of us here are staunch Labour. But in certain areas we know the Tories were better for us than Labour are now. If we voted according to common sense, instead of sticking to our roots, maybe we would all vote Tory and that lot would never get in again.
  It is to the Conservative party that the nation will look for solutions. The Government are victims of their own rhetoric. They have no answers to the challenges facing the nation. They are victims of their own spin. They raised expectations to such a degree that it is impossible for them to deliver. We know that; the British people know that—the workers of Dagenham and Croydon certainly know that. The Government must live with the consequences.
  6.51 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I was interested to hear that the Tories left us such a wonderful economic inheritance. Did they? Let us examine the appalling economic inheritance that we actually received from the previous Tory Government.
  The Conservatives left Britain's record of economic stability among the worst of the G7 countries. Since 1979, Britain had suffered the two deepest and longest recessions since the war, as well as one of the largest booms. Among the G7 countries, only Canada experienced more growth instability during those 18 years than the UK under the Tories.
  In the late 1980s and early 1990s, 1 million jobs were lost in manufacturing and 1 million businesses went under. A total of 2 million jobs disappeared. Interest rates were more than 10 per cent. for four years.
  What golden legacy led to Black Wednesday in 1992? On that day, interest rates were 10 per cent. when we started work; 12 per cent. by 11 o'clock; and by 3 pm, they were set to be 15 per cent. That is the record of the Tory Government, who were led by the Black Wednesday horror team of the Chancellor—now Lord Lamont—and the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the present shadow Chancellor, none other than the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).
  Poor growth and productivity performance were—at least partly—reflected in under-investment. In every year since 1960, the UK invested a lower share of gross domestic product than the OECD average. During the last full international economic cycle from 1982 to 1993, the UK under the Tories invested a lower share of GDP than any G7 country.
  The Labour Government inherited a history of large budget deficits and a steeply rising burden of public debt, while public investment had been neglected. We have no lessons to learn from the Opposition's record of failure and mismanagement—none whatever.
  What have the Government done? Let us consider our record. [Interruption.] For the third year running, inflation is in line with our target and is at a historically low level. The economy is forecast to grow steadily—by between 2.75 and 3.25 per cent. this year and between 2.25 and 2.75 per cent. next year and the year after. At one time, long-term interest rates were 2 per cent. or more above those of Germany. They are now level with the German rate—showing that people have confidence in a low-inflation future for Britain. That is a platform from which businesses can plan for the longer term with greater confidence.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) for his work towards the long-term future of Longbridge. He referred to the role of the banks. I emphasise that the Bank of England is keen to ensure that its existing network of 7,000 business contacts relays regional information back to it as part of the process for setting interest rates and making other decisions.
  We cut borrowing by £40 billion during our first three years in office. We are on course to meet the two strict fiscal rules—[Interruption.] In the Budget, we decided to lock in greater fiscal stability next year and the year after than we had promised in last year's Budget and in the
  206
  pre-Budget Report. Because of the tough decisions we took to cut the deficit during our first two years and lower longer-term interest rates, debt interest payments—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have these conversations between hon. Members while the Minister is speaking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Over there."] Order. I know where the noise is coming from.
  Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One can but conclude that, although the Opposition did not know the answers when they were in government and clearly do not know them now, they do not want to hear about the policies that the Government are successfully pursuing.
  As a result of the tough decisions we took to cut the deficit, debt interest payments will be £4 billion a year lower, so we shall be able to repay debt. Last year, we repaid £3 billion; this year, it will be £12 billion; next year, it will be £6 billion and £5 billion the year after that. That is indeed the third way in operation.
  Let us consider the previous Government's record on manufacturing output and employment. Between 1979 and 1997, manufacturing employment fell by more than 2.5 million. In the early 1990s, when interest rates rose to 15 per cent. for a whole year, manufacturing output fell by more than 7 per cent; manufacturing investment fell by 28 per cent.; and more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost.
  Since the 1997 general election, manufacturing employment has fallen by about 160,000 altogether. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, we should compare that figure with the yearly reductions between 1979 and 1997—140,000 manufacturing jobs were lost for every year of Tory government.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: I am sorry, I cannot give way. There is a limit on speeches and many Government Back-Benchers who wanted to contribute to the debate have unfortunately been unable to do so.
  From May 1997, output rose by 16 per cent. to reach its highest ever point—in the fourth quarter of 1999. During the past three months, output rose by 1.6 per cent. The volume of manufacturing exports rose 9.5 per cent. in the year to February 2000. Productivity is increasing by about 5 per cent. per annum—the fastest rate for five years. Manufacturing investment rose 4 per cent. during the latest quarter—the last quarter of 1999.
  Manufacturing employment continues to contract, but our experience matches that of the United States; roughly the same proportion of people in the US and in the UK are employed in manufacturing. I understand and sympathise with those manufacturing sectors for which the current fall in the euro is a real problem. Such a euro-sterling exchange rate cannot be justified by any view of the long-term economic fundamentals, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor remarked last week.

  207
  However, it would be wrong and counterproductive to adopt the short-term measures proposed by some people, including some Opposition Members. That would indeed be to repeat past mistakes. Instead, we should look to the long term. We must reject a return to the short-term, quick fix that would put at risk the long-term stability that is the foundation for steady growth, investment and job creation. Mervyn King, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, said:
  Stability must be the watchword of policy.
  We have avoided recession in the economy and we now have healthy growth. That is why there are now almost 900,000 more people in work than there were in 1997 and that is why new jobs are being created in manufacturing. In the past week, the creation of 500 new jobs has been announced at Vauxhall, 150 at a new Laird plant in Wolverhampton and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry remarked, 2,200 new high-quality jobs are being created by Marconi in the west midlands.
  Manufacturing has responded. Productivity among electrical and optical equipment manufacturers has risen by 22 per cent. since 1997 and, in the chemical industry, it has risen by 8 per cent. British car factories are among the most productive in the world. I was saddened to hear some Members talking down our manufacturing business in general and our car production in particular.
  Let us consider just one or two aspects of the car industry. I acknowledge that these are difficult times for vehicle manufacturers throughout the world, but a number of recent announcements show the strength of vehicle manufacture in the UK. Peugeot doubled its production in the UK last year; Jaguar achieved record sales and record production; Nissan announced 800 new jobs at Sunderland; and Toyoda announced 400 new jobs in Rotherham. This year, Audi announced an investment of £45 million in Cosworth engineering to expand its site in Northampton, doubling its work force to 1,500. The recent Vauxhall statement, to which the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) referred, announced £189 million of new investment that will create 500 new jobs at the Luton factory. Honda has announced £130 million of investment in Swindon to allow the production of a new model, and last month's sales figures showed that British-built cars increased their sales against the general trend.
  Since 1997, more than £2.6 billion of new investment has been announced with 8,750 new jobs created. We accept that difficult decisions must be made, but that is the context in which those decisions are being made. That is the picture of the UK industry—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a good thing for the Chair to keep intervening, but there is too much noise in the Chamber. I appeal to hon. Members; the hon. Lady is entitled to be heard.
  Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I again draw the conclusion that Conservative Members do not want to listen to the facts of this Government's economic good-news story. It is a good-news story that extends to many sectors of manufacturing despite, we acknowledge, the difficulties under which they are working.
  208
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), because her contribution recognised the wider measures that the Government are taking for business. We have the lowest corporation tax levels ever—businesses' corporation tax bills have been cut by 25 per cent.—and we have introduced the new research and development tax credit, investment allowances, the venture capital fund and the new venture capital arrangements.
  I could go on at great length. [HON. MEMBERS: "More, more!"] I would be delighted to go on at greater length, but I am afraid that Conservative Members have shown no inclination to listen as indeed they have shown no inclination, in what they have said today or done since 1997, to learn from the mistakes of the previous Administration. They have not learned from the past. Indeed, in November 1999, the then shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), predicted a sharper downturn, and said that that was not reflected in the Government's complacency at the time. That prediction, as with all the Tories' predictions, proved to be wrong.
  In contrast, this Government know how to manage the economy. We are looking to the long term, delivering a platform for stability and steady growth and delivering policies for supporting manufacturing and British industry in the competitive global economy. We are optimistic that British manufacturing and British business can match the best in the world. All that would be put at risk by the Conservative party—the boom-and-bust party that pursued short-term economic policies that produced two of this country's deepest and longest recessions and destroyed millions of jobs in manufacturing.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

  Division No. 195]

  [7.5 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Allan, Richard

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Chidgey, David

  Baker, Norman

  Chope, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Clappison, James

  Ballard, Jackie

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Beggs, Roy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Bercow, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Collins, Tim

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cotter, Brian

  Boswell, Tim

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brady, Graham

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Brake, Tom

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Breed, Colin

  Evans, Nigel

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fallon, Michael

  Burnett, John

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Burns, Simon

  Flight, Howard

  Burstow, Paul

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Butterfill, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Fraser, Christopher

  Cash, William

  Gale, Roger

  209

  Garnier, Edward

  Moss, Malcolm

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gibb, Nick

  Norman, Archie

  Gidley, Ms Sandra

  Oaten, Mark

  Gill, Christopher

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ottaway, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Page, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Paice, James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Paterson, Owen

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Pickles, Eric

  Hammond, Philip

  Randall, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Rendel, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence

  Hayes, John

  Ruffley, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Horam, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

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

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Keetch, Paul

  Spring, Richard

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

  Steen, Anthony

  Stunell, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Swayne, Desmond

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lansley, Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Leigh, Edward

  Townend, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tredinnick, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Trend, Michael

  Livsey, Richard

  Tyler, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Viggers, Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Walter, Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Webb, Steve

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Willis, Phil

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maples, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Moore, Michael

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beard, Nigel

  Ainger, Nick

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bell, Martin (Talton)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Best, Harold

  Austin, John

  Betts, Clive

  Barnes, Harry

  Blackman, Liz

  Barron, Kevin

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Bayley, Hugh

  Blizzard, Bob

  210

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Borrow, David

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Galloway, George

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gapes, Mike

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gardiner, Barry

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Gerrard, Neil

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burgon, Colin

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Godsiff, Roger

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Casale, Roger

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caton, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gunnell, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hain, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hill, Keith

  Corbett, Robin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corston, Jean

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cranston, Ross

  Hope, Phil

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kemp, Fraser

  Etherington, Bill

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Flint, Caroline

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Flynn, Paul

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  211

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Laxton, Bob

  Norris, Dan

  Lepper, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Leslie, Christopher

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Olner, Bill

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Linton, Martin

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Pearson, Ian

  Lock, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Love, Andrew

  Perham, Ms Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Pickthall, Colin

  McCabe, Steve

  Pike, Peter L

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Plaskitt, James

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Pollard, Kerry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Pond, Chris

  McDonnell, John

  Pound, Stephen

  McFall, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McNulty, Tony

  Purchase, Ken

  MacShane, Denis

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McWilliam, John

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Rapson, Syd

  Mallaber, Judy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Martlew, Eric

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Maxton, John

  Rooney, Terry

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Meale, Alan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Merron, Gillian

  Roy, Frank

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Ruane, Chris

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Miller, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mitchell, Austin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Moffatt, Laura

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sawford, Phil

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Morley, Elliot

  Sheerman, Barry

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

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Mountford, Kali

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  212

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stevenson, George

  Watts, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  White, Brian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wills, Michael

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wood, Mike

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wray, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Todd, Mark

  Wyatt, Derek

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises that industry does not want a return of the boom and bust policies of the previous Government, with interest rates of 15 per cent, inflation above 10 per cent and soaring budget deficits; welcomes the Government's decisive action in taking politics out of interest rate decisions; notes that employment is currently 880,000 higher than it was when the Government came into office, and that long-term interest rates over the past year have been at their lowest for 35 years; welcomes the measures that the Government has taken to encourage enterprise, investment and innovation which particularly help manufacturing businesses; welcomes the Government's view that where firms are in difficulty the Government has a role in helping people through change as opposed to the previous Government's laissez-faire approach; and condemns the Opposition for its record in government, when manufacturing employment declined by 2¾ million.

  Future of the Teaching Profession
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.18 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the failure of the Government to meet its target for recruitment into initial teacher training and the failure of Government schemes to encourage maths and science graduates into the teaching profession; views with concern the recent poll which showed that over half the profession expects to leave in the next decade and the fact that more teachers are leaving the profession than joining: deplores the Government's failure to deal with the bureaucratic workload faced by teachers, despite teachers' concerns and evidence that this is one of the key factors causing teachers to leave; recognises that this leads to children suffering in the quality of their education; and calls upon the Government to take urgent action to reduce the bureaucratic workload on teachers, to trust the professionals and to let teachers teach.
  I am pleased to open this debate on the important question of the future of the teaching profession. I should like immediately to put on the record our recognition of, and thanks to, the dedicated and committed teachers in our schools who work hard to provide a good quality of education for their pupils. The quality of education that any child receives depends fundamentally on the quality of the teachers. Standards in schools depend on teaching standards, which is why the future of the teaching profession is so important.
  The profession stands at a crossroads. The number of recruits is falling and many teachers are leaving the profession. Teachers are stressed, demoralised and overburdened by bureaucracy. They are imposed on by Government and uncertain about performance-related pay. That picture will not encourage people into the profession. However, if we are to ensure that all children receive a high-quality education that is right for them and which aspires to achieve their full potential, we must re-establish teaching as a valued profession of choice.
  It has been said that
  education is this Government's top priority. The teaching profession is critical to—
  their—
  mission.
  First-rate teachers and head teachers are indispensable to giving all…children the best possible start in life. Those are the Prime Minister's words, and they ring hollow with teachers who, as a newly qualified female primary school teacher said, feel "deflated and disheartened". A male primary school teacher with nine years experience said:
  Every teacher in our school feels demoralised, undervalued and overworked. Three of the younger teachers in my school are actively seeking alternatives to teaching including myself.
  I agree with the Secretary of State that
  Our schools depend, above all, on the skill, commitment and dedication of our heads, teachers and support staff.
  Despite that, we have not had a main debate in the House on the future of the teaching profession for three years. I wonder why. Could it be that, despite the Secretary of State's protestation that
  Teacher recruitment is a top priority
  214
  the number of people recruited to initial teacher training courses has fallen steadily under this Government? Could it be because this year the Government failed again to meet their target for recruitment to initial teacher training by 10 per cent.—more than 3,000 recruits—and by 17 per cent. for secondary teachers?
  Could it be because, in the last year for which figures are available, almost 2,000 more teachers left the profession than joined it? Could the Government's reluctance to discuss the teaching profession be because, by mid-March, just over 9,000 applicants for secondary teacher training had been received—more than 1,000 fewer than the same time last year and 20 per cent. less than the same time two years ago? That figure of 9,000 compares with a total of more than 14,000 available places, although the number of available places itself is down on last year, despite the fact that the Government failed to meet their target. We need more trainees, not fewer.
  The impact of the failure in teacher recruitment is felt in schools. Almost one in 20 teachers uses a temporary or supply teacher, which has an impact on children and on the education that they receive. That is especially so in schools where there is a high turnover of supply teachers or many supply teachers, such as the inner-London school about which I heard recently, which has as many as 20 supply teachers.
  As the Office for Standards in Education annual report said,
  the quality of teaching by supply teachers is weaker than for all other groups of teachers including newly qualified and trainee teachers.
  The Select Committee on Education and Employment stated:
  The quality of supply teachers is a matter of serious concern.
  There are many good teachers who provide supply cover, including many from Australia and New Zealand, for example, who come to this country to provide long-term supply cover, but the issue of the quality of supply teaching cannot be ignored, as schools constantly face problems in recruiting teachers and must fill vacancies with supply teachers.
  The head teacher of a 1,500-pupil comprehensive school in west London recently told us of the school's problems recruiting in certain subjects. It advertised for an information and communication technology teacher, both with an allowance and without, but received no suitable applicant. ICT is a popular subject and the school wanted to offer another group in it, but it has advertised several times and no one suitable has applied.
  The school advertised twice for a science teacher, received four applications, felt that it was worth interviewing only one of the applicants and decided to re-advertise. The school advertised for a curriculum manager, who would be paid at plus four points on the pay spine, but after 17 inquiries received only four applications. When advertising for a head of science recently, the school had to advertise three times before filling the post. Sadly, that experience is not unique; it is faced by schools throughout the country. It reveals a demoralised profession, in which experienced teachers are leaving in droves, which sadly has implications for the quality of education that pupils receive.
  Faced with such a situation, what have the Government done? They introduced golden hellos for maths and science graduates, which are being extended to other

  215
  subjects, such as languages. However, fewer maths and science graduates apply for teacher training today than before the Government introduced their incentive scheme. The Teacher Training Agency launched MS600 18 months ago, which was designed to appeal to well-qualified mature applicants, who would train while working in school. The target was to attract 600, but the scheme was abandoned after placing only 100 trainees in 11 months—one sixth of the target. Those are yet more examples of the Government's failure to deliver.
  The Government may talk of their advertising campaign and the number of expressions of interest in teacher training, but the figures show that an expression of interest is one thing and getting somebody signed up to a teacher training course is another. Indeed, even when people have trained, ensuring that they stay in the profession is another problem still. A significant number of trained teachers do not go on to practise.
  Mr. Hilary Benn: What advice would the hon. Lady give to young people who are thinking about teaching as a profession? Would she encourage them to go into today's profession? It would help the debate if she made her view clear.
  Mrs. May: I am perfectly happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I would certainly advise young people to go into the teaching profession because I could happily tell them that the next Conservative Government would cut bureaucracy, which is one key issue that stops people applying for teaching.
  Sadly, not only is it difficult to get people into training and then into the profession, a significant number of trained teachers are leaving the profession. It was sad to read a poll in The Guardian a few weeks ago showing that more than half the teaching profession is set to quit within a decade, with more than a third of teachers aged under 34 expected to quit in those 10 years. The biggest issues for teachers quitting the profession were heavy work load, followed by bureaucracy and stress.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I assist the hon. Lady? Has she seen the article in The Times Educational Supplement of 26 March on the problem of teacher recruitment across the industrial world, particularly in Europe? There is not just a problem in this country. Will she put her comments into the context of an international crisis in teacher recruitment?
  Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is perfectly all right to say to a class of pupils, "Don't worry about having a supply teacher or about the quality of your education. It is happening elsewhere, so it's not a problem." The hon. Gentleman should face up to his Government's responsibility for doing something about the problem of teacher recruitment in our schools.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has met sixth formers, as I have. Young people, often from poor backgrounds, altruistically would
  216
  like to teach, but the prospect of a four-year teacher training course and possibly having to pay back £16,000 in loans on a teacher's salary makes doing so impossible.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Sixteen thousand? Where did the hon. Gentleman get that figure from?
  Mrs. May: My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is right. It is interesting that the Secretary of State calls into question his figure. One problem is the extra financial burdens on young people entering higher education and teaching that this Government imposed by introducing tuition fees and abolishing the maintenance grant.
  Those wishing to train for a bachelor of education do not receive the training salary available to those studying for a postgraduate certificate of education. The bachelor of education training course is used mostly by primary school teachers. The recent fall in recruitment in primary as well as secondary schools is sad.
  I referred to the issues of stress, work load and bureaucracy. Comments of primary school teachers in a recent National Union of Teachers survey included the following:
  Too much to do with not enough time or help. The end result leads to the children suffering in the quality of their education.
  That was from a classroom teacher of 20 years experience. Another comment, also from a teacher with 20 years experience, was:
  Get off our backs and allow our professional judgment and expertise to get the best from our children—that is if there are any of us left who believe in ourselves.
  There is little future in a profession in which people feel that they are technicians, doing what others say. Not only will that not encourage young people to enter the profession, it will not serve children well. If we are to encourage young people and others into teaching, we must make the profession appealing to them. That means leaving them free to get on with the job of teaching and to exercise professional judgment in the classroom. We must cut the chains of red tape and trust teachers again.
  Caroline Flint: What would the hon. Lady say to the fact that, under the previous Tory Administration, 40 per cent. of 11-year-olds could not read to the standard expected for their age and, under this Government, the latest chief inspector's report shows that standards are rising and that children are benefiting? Is she saying that the choice to be made is between children benefiting from rising standards—a success that teachers should celebrate—or going back to the old system under the Conservative Government, when 40 per cent. of 11-year-olds realised neither their ambition nor their potential?
  Mrs. May: The hon. Lady should have listened to the quote I gave from the primary school teacher with 20 years experience. It is strange that Labour Members now wish to quote the chief inspector. Having opposed the introduction of Ofsted and attacked the chief inspector time and again, they now pray him in aid when they want to oppose the views expressed by teachers. The primary school teacher I quoted said that the end result of the bureaucracy was that the quality of children's education suffered.

  217
  The Government have failed to tackle bureaucracy, despite giving numerous promises to do so during the past three years. They have promised to cut red tape, to give red tape a caning, to cut through red tape, to take action to cut bureaucracy, and to tackle red tape. They claim to have taken steps to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy—but what have they done? They are
  working to provide an alternative to paper communication
  by providing "more on the Net." Do not Ministers realise that whether information is on paper or in electronic form, it still has to be read? The plans required by the Department for Education and Employment still have to be produced, and the time that that takes cannot be reduced simply by providing the plans in electronic form, rather than on paper. It is clear that the Government do not understand the problem of paperwork.
  In addition, the Government appear to have a warped sense of humour. That can be seen in their amendment to the motion, in which they claim that one of the ways in which they are improving
  teaching and the rewards for teaching
  is through
  the Better Regulation Task Force Report on 'Red Tape Affecting Headteachers'.
  That report was a damning indictment of the Government's failure to reduce bureaucracy. It described the situation under the current Government as follows:
  over-elaborate processes are being used to achieve straightforward objectives, leading to unnecessary duplication and confusing excessive lines of accountability
  yet the Government claim that the quality of teaching is being improved by such processes.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I speak as one who has direct experience of that sort of bureaucracy. When I was a teacher, I was in charge of delivering the science element of the national curriculum that the Conservative Government introduced. I recall also being in charge of three filing cabinets that were filled with material designed to justify the amount of paperwork that that Government had imposed on schools. The national curriculum was overly bureaucratic and probably remains so, but it is now far less bureaucratic than it was when the Conservatives introduced it.
  Mrs. May: The problem with the Labour Government is that they are making things worse. I have some advice for the hon. Gentleman: at the next general election, people will be asking him not what the last Conservative Government did, but what his Government have done—and what they have done is introduce
  over-elaborate processes…to achieve straightforward objectives…unnecessary duplication and confusing excessive lines of accountability.
  The Government have increased the bureaucratic burdens on teachers and then told them that, if they want to lighten their load, they should stop doing things such as collating pupil reports, classroom display, administering cover and administering examinations. That misses the point entirely: the Government are creating too much paperwork and they should put their own back yard in order before telling teachers to sort out theirs.
  It is time that Ministers put their money where their mouth is and cut their own bureaucracy. How did sending out 23 press releases last week help to raise standards in
  218
  education? It did not. New initiatives are being introduced at a time when teachers are coping with standard assessment tests, GCSEs and A-levels, and with all the work needed to go through the threshold of the new performance-related pay scheme. Perhaps the Government should listen to the warning given by the head of St. Clement's high school in King's Lynn: when called to Downing street to receive an award for consistent improvement, he said that he would tell the Prime Minister to
  allow schools to concentrate on the real business in hand.
  In addition to the bureaucracy facing them, teachers also have to cope with disruptive pupils in schools. Not only are such pupils a threat to the education of other pupils, but they are often a threat to the teachers themselves. Last September, it was reported that Unison directly blamed the Government's policy of reducing the number of exclusions for the fact that assaults on school support staff in Southampton had doubled in a year. The union said that the Government's emphasis on keeping disruptive children within schools, rather than excluding them, had resulted in staff being exposed to the threat of violent pupils. The Government should abolish their targets for reducing the number of exclusions and let teachers get on with the job of exercising the discipline that is needed in their classrooms.
  Another cry I frequently hear from teachers is, "Trust us again". There is too much interference in what teachers do; it is time to let them get on with the job of teaching. The Government cannot even trust teachers to decide which computer to buy under the subsidy scheme. Teachers were told that they would be given £500 toward the cost of a computer, but they then learned that the money would be taxed. They were told that they had to show that they had been trained before they could get the money, but then that they needed to show only that they would be trained. I understand that only 15,000 teachers applied. I assume that they were worried about receiving an on-screen message from the Prime Minister saying "I love you". I do not know which they found more frightening—knowing that the message was a virus, or thinking that it might be true. The list is now closed, but the Government do not even trust teachers to go out and buy the machine they want. They have been given a list of acceptable manufacturers that happens to exclude the UK market leader in retail computer sales. What message does it send when teachers cannot even be trusted to make such a decision for themselves?
  On top of all that, the Government are pushing through an overly bureaucratic, cumbersome and administratively expensive performance-related pay scheme, against the wishes of many teachers.
  Mr. Richard Allan: On a point of information, will the hon. Lady tell us the name of the market-leading company that has been excluded from the list?
  Mrs. May: If the hon. Gentleman chose to look at the market share listings, he would know the answer to his question: Packard Bell.
  I have always said that it is right to reward good teachers and that there should be open and recognisable appraisal systems in all schools. I also believe that, whatever teachers think of the performance-related pay system, strike action is wrong because the greatest impact is suffered by children.

  219
  The Government are pushing the scheme through without proper training. Most head teachers to whom I have spoken tell me that their training was of little value because trainers did not have the answers to more than half their questions. Apparently, in one case trainers said that they did not know the answer, but if the heads wanted to write their question on a piece of yellow sticky paper and stick it on the wall, they would take the bits of paper down after the session and try to find the answers. Those head teachers were given only one day of training.
  Teachers are rushing to get their applications in in time, and schools are worried about the funding implications of the scheme. As one governor of a small primary school in north Yorkshire told me this afternoon, the school has three good teachers, but it faces difficulty because it does not know whether it will get the funds to support future pay increases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ridiculous."] I suggest that Labour Members talk to governors about the problems that they are facing, and listen to what they say.
  Mr. Blunkett: What answer did the hon. Lady give to that individual? Did she say to her, "I don't know the answer, but I shall make sure I find out and write to you"? Did she say, "No, the money will not be available"? Or did she say, "Yes, the Secretary of State has made an absolutely clear pledge that the money—new money—will be made available to pay the award, that it will be consistently paid, and that it will be ring-fenced to ensure that the school does not lose out"?
  Mrs. May: Had I said to that lady and other governors and teachers who have raised the issue with me that the Secretary of State had made an absolutely clear pledge, they would probably have said that it was like the Labour manifesto pledge to
  raise the proportion of national income spent on education—
  a pledge that the Government have failed dismally to keep.
  Just as schools think seriously about whether they will be able to support teachers through the threshold, they discover that the Government have spent £4 million on a contract—one that did not even go out to tender—with Hay McBer to tell the Government what makes a good teacher, as though teachers could not have told them and as though there is only a single model of a good teacher. That simply adds insult to injury.
  It is not just bureaucracy that is demoralising teachers. I hear complaints, as do others, about the increasing interference in what goes on in the classroom, and the heavy degree of prescription from the centre that is sapping the job of its scope for innovation and spontaneity. As a result, Government interference and centralisation are sapping teachers of the means and energy to inspire pupils to aspire to reach their highest potential. That is why the issue is so important.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No, I have given way several times. I shall make progress.
  The issue is the quality of education that our children are receiving, as a means of enabling all young people to reach their full potential. The Government are leveling
  220
  down in education and taking away the spontaneity that made the job appealing. That is why the Government are failing not just teachers, but pupils and parents.
  Teachers are snowed under with bureaucratic burdens. My experience is that teachers work with whatever system they are given, but try as they might, the work load and centralisation are having an effect on what teachers can achieve in the classroom. The profession is facing a crisis, and that will not be solved by yet more initiatives, by an over-bureaucratic form of performance-related pay, or by setting up a General Teaching Council with large numbers of Government appointees.
  It is difficult to recruit young people into teaching, but to ensure the future of the profession and to encourage them to enter the profession we need to show them not only the value of teachers, but that they will be treated as professionals and will be given the freedom and flexibility that they need to get on with the job, without constantly being subjected to interference from the bureaucrats in Whitehall.
  I shall end with a quote from a recent survey of members of the National Union of Teachers. [Interruption.] We usually hear sniggers from the Government Benches when the NUT is mentioned. That is sad, but I hope that hon. Members will not snigger at a direct quote from a primary school teacher with 11 years experience, who said that teachers were like suns shining in the classroom for their children. She said:
  Oh, let us be "suns" again, not weary, insistent personalities. Trust in us and let us shine once more.
  With the burdens of bureaucracy, constant initiatives being introduced without time to get any of them properly established, performance-related pay being pushed through without proper training, and disruptive pupils being kept in school, it is hardly surprising that teachers feel let down by the Government and are leaving the profession. The Government need to cut the bureaucracy, trust the professionals again, and let the teachers teach.
  7.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the substantial steps taken by the Government to improve teaching and the rewards for teaching, which include the introduction of a General Teaching Council, the development of better pay for good teaching, the introduction of training salaries to improve teacher recruitment, new measures to improve the training of headteachers, the Better Regulation Task Force Report on 'Red Tape Affecting Headteachers', administrative support for schools, more classroom assistants, lower infant and junior class sizes. reform of induction and teacher training, and significant improvements in funding for school budgets and school modernisation; and notes that these measures have already reversed a legacy of budget cuts, rising class sizes and inadequate training inherited from the previous administration."
  I shall make one promise to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I promise faithfully never to send her an e-mail saying "I love you."
  The hon. Lady is right about one thing, of which all of us on the Government side are mindful. At the next general election, we will be judged on our record, the improvement in children's education and the standards in our schools. The electorate probably will forget what it was like under a Conservative Government. Regrettably,

  221
  people will forget the low standards, the indifference to schools in the most deprived areas, the divisions, the conflict, the break-up of co-operation between schools in their efforts to raise standards for all children, not just for a few, and the elitism in the provision of extra resources for some and the reduction in resources for the many.
  Mr. Chris Ruane: As a primary school teacher who had 15 years' experience of teaching, all under the Conservatives, may I remind my right hon. Friend of some of the other measures that they introduced? They increased the bureaucratic burden on teachers and were responsible for a drop in morale. At the National Union of Teachers conference in the early 1990s, a teacher brought on to the main stage a five-foot pile of paperwork. The national curriculum was introduced by the Conservatives without any consultation with the teaching profession. That was pure hypocrisy.
  Mr. Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  In their motion, the Opposition purport to encourage and support teachers, yet, throughout her speech, the hon. Member for Maidenhead denigrated what was going on, discouraging aspiring teachers from entering the profession. She said that the teaching profession was demoralised, that teachers were being oppressed with bureaucracy, that, contrary to reality, standards were falling, that we were not allowing teachers to teach, and that the little sunshine to which she referred at the end was not shining through. The implication of her speech was that it was no good entering the teaching profession because, over the past three years, the big bad Government had brought teachers to their knees.
  Mrs. May: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I suggest that, in future, he listens a little more carefully to what I say. The quote that I gave about the "suns" was from a teacher. I know that the Secretary of State does not like listening to teachers, but all those comments came from teachers. The Government's impact on the teaching profession is causing the demoralisation. It is nothing to do with the teachers. The right hon. Gentleman's actions as Secretary of State are causing people to leave the profession.
  Mr. Blunkett: I hear those things from some of the 400,000 people employed in teaching. I ask them how many teachers they think left the profession on ill health or early retirement grounds over the past few years. They say that a great many more people are leaving now, because they are under stress and they have difficulty keeping up with the standards.
  I examined the figures and discovered that in 1990, 4,000 teachers left the profession on ill-health grounds. In 1997—the last year for which the Tories can carry responsibility—the figure was 4,400. Last year, it was 2,100. With premature retirement, in 1990 the number leaving was 8,100. By 1997, it had risen to 14,100. Last year, it was 2,700. That shows the terrible legacy that we inherited, and the terrible burden on teachers now.
  The proposals for early retirement for teachers were changed by the previous Government precisely because they were terrified at the number of teachers leaving the profession. Teachers could not get out of the profession fast enough because the bureaucratic burdens about which
  222
  we have heard were piled on, starting with a national curriculum that was so over-burdened that the then Secretary of State was ordered by the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, to slim it down.
  With the introduction of the key stage tests and assessments—some of the terrible things to which the hon. Lady referred—there was industrial action and one union brought a court case which resulted in the then Government backing off, slimming down the tests and putting in place resources to ensure that the tests were marked externally. That is what we inherited, and illustrates the difference between what was and what is.
  There is a problem of teacher recruitment. Targets for primary school teaching have been met by the previous Government and the present Government consistently since 1993. However, targets for secondary school teacher recruitment have not been met by either Government for any of that period. That is why we decided to take decisive action. We introduced the training salary for training schools—the £13,000 for the year, with extra money to enable schools to supervise and train, to bring in mature students. It is why we provided for the £6,000 for graduate teachers so that they can work through the last year of training with the assurance that they will receive £150 a week over the nine months. It is also why postgraduate teacher trainees do not pay the tuition fee. I therefore intervened on the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) to correct him about the £16,000 debt hanging over teachers' heads.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way, but let me correct the hon. Gentleman before he asks another question. Students who, after three years of a degree course, are taking a postgraduate certificate of education, which is a one-year course—I know something about that because I took such a course—do not pay fees in their fourth year. Such students will be paid £150 a week—£6,000 over nine months—for the training. That is hardly a fourth-year bill.
  Mr. Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman may be Secretary of State but I am the father of a daughter who is leaving teacher training college after a four-year teaching degree. Surely the Secretary of State knows that the majority of teachers qualify through that route. Four years multiplied by £4,000—I believe that it is now more—is £16,000 at today's prices. That is why sixth formers do not want to go to teacher training college.
  Mr. Blunkett: I was not referring to the BEd qualification. My remarks were specific; I referred to postgraduate certificate of education. A BEd course is a sub-degree, undergraduate course. To put the record straight, the majority of teachers do not qualify through that route. Secondary school teachers take PGCEs; the majority do not take BEd degrees. [Interruption.] No, they do not.
  There is no shortage of primary school teachers. We have met the targets that I described earlier. The hon. Member for Maidenhead was wrong to say that the maths golden hello failed; it did not. The recruitment of maths graduates increased by 17 per cent. as a result of the golden hello.
  However, there is a recruitment problem. There is a problem in recruiting teachers in the industrialised world. The problem also exists in the university sector. There is

  223
  a similar age profile problem in terms of people who leave universities to that of schools. That has nothing to do with the bureaucratic burden on schools. It has nothing to do with the imposition of standards, key stage tests or the morale of primary school teachers who talk to the hon. Member for Maidenhead. We are considering universities, where the same pattern exists. We must do something about that. We must ensure that people feel and know that the teaching profession is worth entering, and that they will receive support and be valued when they are in it. It is important to convey the message that we value good teachers and that is why we intend to pay them well.
  Mr. Phil Willis: It is unfair of the Secretary of State to deal only with postgraduate routes into teaching and ignore many people who become teachers, especially primary school teachers, through studying a BEd. Those people will not receive training salaries and the fees for their final year will not be paid. We will have a two-tier system: those who go through the traditional BEd route will be treated differently from those who go through a postgraduate route. Is that the way in which we value teachers?
  Mr. Blunkett: First, two thirds of teachers go through the PGCE route. Secondly, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman said whether he agreed with the package we have devised for teacher recruitment: the £13,000 trainee salary in training schools and the £6,000 that we are providing for PGCE students. That is primarily, but not exclusively, aimed at secondary school teaching, for which it is most difficult to recruit.
  Mr. Willis: I am happy to say that our policy at the last general election was to give trainee teachers a 50 per cent. salary in their final year. We are delighted that the Government have adopted our policy. However, we do not believe that it is right for the policy to apply only to a specific group of students. It should be available for all students who are entering the teaching profession.
  Mr. Blunkett: If we had put only the equivalent of 1p on the amount we spend on education, we could not afford the package. If we consider the measures that I described together with performance-related promotion, the uplift of £2,000 to the majority of teachers, and access to, dare I say it, the new incremental scales—the sketch writers will be enjoying a good dinner, so I will not be ribbed for using jargon, but there is no other term for incremental scales—teachers will receive substantial pay for doing a good job.
  I want to pose the Opposition a simple question: when did the hon. Member for Maidenhead change her mind about performance-related pay? After the Select Committee's deliberations, when she signed up to performance-related pay, when did she decide that she no longer believed in it? Like so much Opposition policy, did she decide it when she read or heard that it would be popular for one moment in one hour in one day to say the opposite of what she had said before? Did she hope that she would mislead some people somewhere into believing that she was on their side?
  On whose side is the hon. Lady? Is paying teachers well for doing a good job being on their side? Is opposing that being on their side? When asked about one's
  224
  approach, whether there will be continuity and additional money and whether a school will therefore be able to pay, is it right simply to keep silent or is it better to be honest and say, "I don't agree with the Government's actions, but money will be available because I don't want you to be under any illusions and thus fail to adhere to the targets and the threshold regulations."? Some honesty is required. I am prepared to admit that there is a recruitment problem. I am even prepared to admit that we have not cracked the problem of low morale in teaching. I expect a little honesty in return.
  For example, I expect some honesty about bureaucratic burdens. Yes, there is more to be done, and we shall do more. Not only the Government, but the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, Ofsted and education authorities need to do more. Education authorities often duplicate what other agencies send out and add to it a note of the education authority's view of the issue.
  I shall tell the House how many bureaucratic burdens have been imposed since the beginning of January. Forty-nine documents have been sent to primary schools. They include one on consultation, one on data collection, 13 on guidance and 34 for information only. The latter consist of two pages or less and simply provide information back-up on relevant matters. Secondary schools have been sent only 46 documents: one on consultation, two on data collection, 12 on guidance, 31 for information, again on topics of immediate interest. I agree that even 46 is too many, and we shall do better. However, deciding which document we do not send out is always a moot point.
  Fifteen documents for action and guidance have been about teaching able children. Should we have sent them out? Further guidance has consisted of an update on literacy and numeracy. I have never managed to persuade the hon. Member for Maidenhead to say whether she supports the literacy and numeracy programme, which she constantly describes as a bureaucratic burden. Tonight, she described it as interfering with teachers' teaching. Teachers are teaching, and teaching better. They are doing well for their students. Teachers and pupils say that the literacy and numeracy programmes are working and that they enjoy them.
  Voluntary schemes for key stage 1 save teachers having to duplicate work by re-inventing the wheel and they can also be drawn down from the Department's Standards website—something that never existed under the previous Government. Should we have not sent out guidance on employing disabled teachers and on performance management? The guidance is about helping people to do their job. There is more to do, but we are doing a great deal to ensure that what arrives—fewer than two and a half documents a week over 20 weeks—enables people to read and to learn if they want to. They can be in the same world as the rest of us in terms of paperwork, deciding priorities and doing the job.
  What have we done? We have done terrible things to the teaching profession such as paying teachers more; providing better support; introducing the General Teaching Council; providing better pay for good teachers and the training salary of £6,000; improving head teacher training; providing administrative support for small schools, which never existed previously; providing more classroom assistants—20,000 by the end of next year; achieving lower infant and junior class sizes for the first

  225
  time in 10 years; and reforming the induction and the teacher training programme, which the hon. Member for Maidenhead did not mention.
  For the first time, there is a teacher training curriculum and proper induction with reduced contact time. For those watching the Parliamentary channel, contact time is time spent in contact with pupils in the classroom, which we deliberately reduced in the first year to enable the introduction of the induction programme. Funding improvements have been made for schools across the board and 17,000 benefit from the new deal for schools capital—£4.5 billion of extra money is going in this year. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is having a good laugh, but the head teachers and teachers who will receive the extra money from the Budget are the ones who are really having a good laugh. They know that secondary schools will receive between £30,000 and £50,000 and that primaries will receive up to £9,000, which they certainly would not have got were the Opposition in government. That £4.5 billion is an 8 per cent. real-terms increase, which represents the real-terms spending power for schools during the whole of the previous Parliament.
  We have modernised the teaching profession and we make no apology for driving up standards. We make no apology for demanding the best from teachers or for paying the best well to do the job. We make no apology for driving hard to achieve the best way in which to teach in the classroom, but we deny entirely that we have failed to allow teachers to teach or to enable them to do so in decent conditions with decent pay and prospects. Teachers will teach, and teach well. They will ensure that all children—not only some—have the opportunity to learn and the life chances that they deserve.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: I have agreed to speak with my usual brevity in the hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and make her maiden speech.
  On behalf of Liberal Democrat Members, I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of the teaching profession. Sadly, I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said. I am sad because I, too, remember the 18 years under the previous Administration, when I was a head teacher. The Conservative party invented bureaucracy in our schools, but she has repented of the evil doings of former Secretaries of State—I remember Mr. Patten very well—and for every sinner who repents we rejoice.
  Teachers have to meet the challenge of change—no Member of the House would disagree with that—and we support the efforts of the Government, the teacher unions and the profession to do so. Sir Claus Moser recently commented that
  uniquely, education alone is both the cause and the consequence of national prosperity …
  Few would disagree, and, if that is so, surely we must also recognise that the teaching profession is fundamental to realising that vision. As Lord Puttnam, the new chairman of the General Teaching Council, so aptly said:
  Teachers are the agents for change in society—they have the ability not just to alter this country for the better, but to actually secure its future. No other sector of the population can do that …
  226
  At last year's National Association of Head Teachers conference, those comments were echoed by the Prime Minister. He said:
  I know that the success of what we are trying to do will succeed or fail on the efforts of individual teachers in every classroom in the country …
  That is strong stuff.
  Whatever criticisms the Secretary of State may make of me or of my party's policies, I hope that he will not criticise my commitment to the teaching profession or my admiration for much of the work that goes on in so many schools throughout the country. However, where is the evidence that the Prime Minister's proud words and aspirations are being put into action? Whether the Secretary of State likes it or not, the profession feels betrayed by a Government who promised to rescue it from the draconian clutches of the previous Administration, but who have succeeded only in further emasculation. They ooze good intention, but simply will not listen to the profession. Teachers are regarded as part of the problem rather than most of the solution, and the same applies to others in respect of many of their public service policies.
  A three-year delay in tackling the challenges that the Government faced on taking office, and there were many, will cost the nation dear. Since 1997, my party has warned the Department for Education and Employment that there would be a crisis in our classrooms unless recruitment and retention became a top priority. That crisis has become a reality. There is a record number of vacancies for our schools this September, and last week, for the first time in its history, The Times Educational Supplement ran to 500 pages, 440 of which were filled with job vacancies.
  Mr. Blunkett: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the vacancies represent 0.8 per cent. of the total number of teaching posts?
  Mr. Willis: Whether the vacancies represent 0.8, 1 or 1.5 per cent. of the number of posts, a significant number of schools are desperately trying to recruit teachers for next September. Most of those 440 pages advertised vacancies for maths, science and modern language secondary school teachers. Maths vacancies counted for 20 per cent. of all advertised vacancies.
  Mrs. May: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the official vacancy figures to which the Secretary of State referred underestimate the situation in our schools? They show about 2,600 vacancies, but the figure of 16,600 for supply teachers represents a more accurate picture.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those comments. The Secretary of State referred to the January 1999 figures, which are the latest available. According to the House of Commons Library, the number of secondary school vacancies has increased by 25 per cent. since 1997. Between 1988 and 1997—the so-called bad years of the Tory Administration—there was a 60 per cent. fall. However, perhaps more disturbingly, the number of unqualified teachers working in our schools has risen by a staggering 19 per cent. That alludes to the hon. Lady's point. Most of the vacancies are in London, because many

  227
  London schools, especially schools in inner-London boroughs, cannot recruit anyone to put before children. That really is an indictment.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am keen that no one out there should be misled. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us his definition of "unqualified teachers".
  Mr. Willis: I am happy to give the Secretary of State that definition. An unqualified teacher is a teacher who does not have qualified-teacher status—and I regard a teacher with qualified-teacher status as a qualified teacher. If the Secretary of State is saying that the Government intend to deal with the teacher crisis by allowing anyone to teach our children—actually to appear before a class of youngsters—he ought to confirm that now.
  Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to speak.
  I am prepared to accept equivalent qualified-teacher status from countries that we recognise, with the same quality of training, in order to provide the access that we expect from them for those who receive qualified-teacher status here. What has just been said is an insult to New Zealand and Australian teachers who come to our country and do a good job.
  Mr. Willis: I do not recall mentioning New Zealand and Australian teachers, and I think Hansard will record that I did not. I did, however, mention a definition of unqualified teachers. I have given the Secretary of State a clear definition of what I would term an unqualified teacher. It is rather sad that he now says that if we are to staff London schools—40 per cent. of teacher vacancies throughout the country are in London primary schools, and 30 per cent. are in London secondary schools—we should bring teachers in from the Commonwealth. If that is the Government's policy, my goodness, we have reached a sorry state of affairs.
  A recent ICM poll declared that a third of teachers under 35 wanted to leave the profession within 10 years, and 50 per cent. within 15 years. We need not look far for the reasons. Teaching is fast becoming a "technician" activity under the present Government: teachers are told what to teach, when to teach, how to teach, how to assess and how to record, and somehow that is regarded as being part of the profession. Teachers are bombarded by bureaucracy and form-filling to an extent that beggars belief.
  The Secretary of State referred to the number of documents that had been released since January. During three months of probing, his Department refused time and again to respond to my requests. By March 2000, it had sent each school 366 pieces of paperwork since May 1997: 73 consultation papers, 220 guidance documents, 58 data collection documents, and 15 separate letters from Ministers. Under the present Government, schools have received 18 documents a month, rather than the 2.5 per week that have been referred to over the past few months. If we add the 1,291 separate pieces of paperwork sent to local education authorities, many of which compound the bureaucracy that already exists in schools, we can see why teachers want to get out.
  228
  There is no end in sight, however. It seems that nowadays Ministers cannot make a comment without issuing a new target. At present, teachers are coping with the 4,585 targets set by the Government, the 129,330 targets set by LEAs and the 306,430,710 targets set for individual children—I thought the Secretary of State would like that! Teachers must report on all those targets. In the words of Lord Puttnam, teachers need to be
  in charge of their lives and their jobs.
  But they are not.
  When the distressing figures about staff illness came out last week, showing that last year 60 per cent. of full-time teachers took some sick leave and that more than 2.5 million days were lost, what was the Government's response? It was not to look for reasons, or to offer sympathy; it was to set a target for schools to reduce the incidence of sickness, because it was affecting children's education. Well, of course it is. Stress does not just affect our children's education; it permanently disables some good teachers, drives others out of the classroom, and—although the Secretary of State rather sadly laughs at this—sends others to early graves.
  There is real evidence that teachers are under huge stress. According to their review body, they are working an average of 60 hours a week. The review body's recommendation to the Government was clear:
  Action should be taken to ensure that the hours worked by all teachers are kept within reasonable bounds and that they have reasonable rest periods and breaks.
  The Government's better regulation taskforce, chaired by Lord Haskins—it was mentioned earlier—has criticised the bureaucratic burden placed on the teaching profession. In the 5 April edition of The Guardian, Lord Haskins said that the Department for Education and Employment was
  the most Stalinist department I have ever come across.
  The Secretary of State applauds that. My goodness!
  In-depth surveys by the National Association of Head Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers and the National Union of Teachers have indicated that, in terms of stress, work load and added value, the biggest problem facing schools is bureaucracy. Is this the climate in which we hope to recruit our brightest and best young graduates to the teaching profession? "Everyone remembers a good teacher", says the advertisement, but soon we will be asked, "Will anyone good want to become a teacher?"
  The challenge for the Government is not how to reward 30 per cent. of teachers by demanding that they jump through yet more bureaucratic hoops, but how teachers are to be liberated in schools. No one will be attracted to, and few will stay in, a profession that does not value the professional ethics. Ministers must understand that creative teachers cannot be bred in captivity. We echo the call for our teachers to be allowed to teach and our children to be allowed to learn: then, and only then, will our teachers realise their potential, and the potential of their profession.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Because of the ten-minute rule, I must make a short speech. I shall base it not only on my role as Chairman of the Select Committee, but on the fact that that role has given me the privilege over the past few months of visiting many

  229
  schools around the country that I would not have visited otherwise, in Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire and, last week, the Bristol area. Members of the Select Committee have been getting out and about, talking to teachers about how they view their jobs and the profession in general.
  I was stunned by the two Opposition speeches that I heard. They bore no relation to what was said by the teachers whom I met, and whom the rest of the Select Committee met. I met a group of people who, on the whole, were optimistic and proud of their profession. They were professionals, they took great joy in their jobs, and they were getting on with their jobs. I had to draw out any negative views and criticisms. By and large, the people whom I met said, "We are very pleased with the extra resources that we are receiving."
  Early-years teachers are profoundly grateful. They have never had anything as wonderful as the early-years partnerships and the money that allows young children to go to school, if that is appropriate, at the age of three, four or five. This is a marvellous time to be a pre-school teacher.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), I shall not quote anecdotal evidence. Most of it is not attributable to any particular person, so we must trust the hon. Lady: if she is indeed honourable, she will not have made it up on the train. The fact is, however, that we all have experience of visiting schools in our constituencies.
  Mrs. May: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to read the NUT survey report, which includes a number of quotations, a number of which I quoted, which do not give names. I did identify them as classroom teachers of various years experience. I suggest that he listens to the speech from the Opposition Front Bench, rather than giving a speech in response to the speech that he thought would be given.
  Mr. Sheerman: I reiterate that, in her speech, the hon. Lady did not attribute most of the comments to a particular person. That is easy. We can all do that, but the fact is that, as I go around the country, I do not find the picture that she or the Liberal Democrat spokesman have described.
  In what profession would people not be saying, "We have a range of criticisms. We want some things to be changed. Not everything is perfect"? Let us go through them. I do not want these debates. I believe that they should not be allowed because they become the usual slanging match between Opposition and Government. The remarks that are made in these debates put more people off teaching than anything else I can think of.
  Anyone who listened to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) would have had a large question mark about entering what is a very interesting profession at this very exciting time. I want to try to get a balanced view. We have a teaching profession that is excellent. I agree with every word that Lord Puttnam said—I shall not quote those well-known remarks again. The profession is at a very exciting stage.
  After all, we rely on teachers to turn out our children. We give them our children and we end up with a wonderful body of kids coming out of school who are educated, trained and employable. They have good moral standards and values. I am talking about the kids of our country and the success of the teachers who teach them.
  230
  That is the truth. Not enough people in this place say that. We are always reading about the problems, about certain incidents and about the tiny minority of children who perhaps misbehave. On the whole, as we know, our teachers produce excellently educated and trained children and good citizens. That is the truth, so let us start with the basic truth.
  Of course, all Governments do not get it absolutely right. The present Government have not. Some of their communication is not good enough. I personally believe that performance-related pay is good for the profession. I also believe that it has been poorly communicated. There is one thing that we do find when we go into a staff room and start a conversation over a cup of tea—teachers say that they are worried that performance-related pay will disturb the collegiate atmosphere in their school and be divisive.
  There are good arguments that that need not necessarily be so; that, in fact, it will not be the case; and that it is a fine way of rewarding teachers in the way in which they should be rewarded, but I say to the Minister and to Ministers who are not present: we could do better in communicating what we are about from the beginning. I hope that Ministers will take that on board.
  I do not want to go through the stress side too much, but that is an important area. Teaching is a lonely job. People teach in their classrooms on their own. There is a disturbing trend—many teachers have mentioned it. I think that it is to do not with the Government, but with the society in which we live. At the Easter conferences, we saw dramatic examples of teachers speaking at the rostrum who had been accused of abusing a child. There is one sector of the British justice system where people are guilty until they are proven innocent: where the allegation is of child abuse. I sometimes wonder whether one of the great deterrents to people going into teaching is the way in which our criminal justice system has changed for that one area.
  I spent a lot of time dealing with the criminal justice system, speaking in the House on criminal justice matters. In terms of a number of professions, including social workers, probation workers, care home assistants and teachers, we are getting into a hysteria about children and child abuse and probably have the balance wrong. It cannot be right if prospective teachers who are thinking about coming into the teaching profession are deterred by the real fear that their lives and their families' lives could be destroyed. All of us have constituents to whom it has happened—constituents who have faced an allegation of abuse from one child. That can mean months, if not years, of suspension, torture and misery.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is widespread support among Members on both sides of the House for the points that he has just made? It underlines the importance of the Government really getting right, for example, the sex and relationships education guidance, which advises teachers on what they should and should not say to children, and some of the culture, as well as the criminal justice rules about schools, to avoid those false accusations.
  Mr. Sheerman: I thank my hon.—I should say the hon. Gentleman. He is a member of the Select Committee, so it is hard to remember. He made an important point.

  231
  What I am trying to draw out is that we can get into a situation where we say it is the Government's fault, it is always the Government's fault, or it was the Opposition's fault that we had 18 years of neglect. We all know that. Sometimes we should strip those arguments away and say, "Come on. There is a problem."
  I intervened on the hon. Member for Maidenhead and said, "Look, it is an international problem." I was at a well-known college in Oxford last Thursday evening. I talked to the teaching staff there. They said that one of the sad things is that people do not want to go into teaching any more. They all want to go into the City and to be highly paid lawyers. Those teachers regretted that, but something in our society, which we are perhaps all responsible for, has demoted working in the public sector and in the public interest. Whether that is to do with Thatcherism or greed, or whether it is something that has happened in all countries, I would rather look at the matter with some balance and with some basis of research, rather than just blame others in the usual way, as in a Punch and Judy act, in the House.
  Mr. David Drew: I worked in teacher training for many years. We always had to accept that entrance into the teaching profession was inversely related to economic prosperity. It is a simple fact that it has always been more difficult to recruit people to teaching when we have done relatively well in terms of economic development. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?
  Mr. Sheerman: I take my hon. Friend's point. He is right. In times of economic boom, recruitment to teaching is less good because there are many other alternatives, it is a demanding, tough job and it is not the best paid job in the world, although it is reasonably paid. However, a significant number of people are moving away from valuing teaching as a profession. It is the American pattern. I regret that.
  I still remember the last speech that the late John Smith made the night before he died. It was about trying to get back into our society the value of public service, the value of doing a job that is about not just making as much money as possible, but getting a reasonable income for doing a job that is rewarding. There is nothing more rewarding than teaching young people.
  There is the matter of the burden on teachers. We can look at it rationally. One person's bureaucratic burden is someone's helpful channel of communication; there was a bit of that in the exchanges across the Floor earlier. If teachers are left to teach with no helpful advice, no guidance and no communication, we would be in a sorry state. They would be alienated, thinking that no one cared about them. They would say, "They never communicate. We do not know what they want us to do." Interestingly, from talking to teachers, I perceive the problem to be that there are too many lines of communication. They are all blurred.
  Teachers are responsible to head teachers—who are responsible to governors, the local education authority, the Government and various other bodies. There is a fuzzing and blurring of the lines and channels of communication. We should earnestly and seriously consider that issue, because there is a problem.
  232
  Lord Haskins—undoubtedly with his characteristic good humour—offered an interesting insight when he said that the Department was the most Stalinist that he had ever come across. I do not take the comment that seriously, but this morning, when the Select Committee was interviewing Sir Michael Bichard, the Department's permanent secretary, we quoted it. Although I suspect that we must take it with a pinch of salt, there is a grain of truth in it. Communication could be better and more sensitive.
  Mr. John Bercow: It is obviously a matter of balance. However, does the hon. Gentleman honestly believe that every one of the extra 3,468 new regulations introduced last year was essential? Does he not acknowledge that the sea of regulation is now deeper and more hazardous than any other with which teachers have had to contend? What proportion of those circulars or regulations does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that the average head teacher has time fully to read?
  Mr. Sheerman: I am sure that, in the past 20 or 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in communications between Departments and schools and between LEAs and schools. The truth is that all Governments have tried increasingly to control education and educational output. I therefore imagine that a graph would show exponential growth in such communication. I probably also understand the reasons for that growth.
  I should like to finish on a very serious point. One of the Select Committee's roles is to interview the chief inspector of schools. I regret that, very often, bashing the chief inspector is considered to be popular sport—everyone likes to do it. Although there may be reasons for doing it, I shall not do it today. On the most recent occasion when the chief inspector gave evidence to the Committee, we had a very positive exchange with him. I should perhaps add that our report was issued this morning—in case anyone wants to rush out and get a copy direct from the printers.
  Who would deny, however, the problem that is expressed when one goes into schools and talks about inspection to teachers? Of course we want to know about the standards in our schools, and of course we want not only to measure, but to raise standards. I am also a believer in the old business adage, "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it." However, although I believe that that adage is very important in terms of literacy and numeracy—in which the Government have done a very good job—I think that there is still a very real problem with inspection.
  Although I am hesitant to refer to the tragedy of a suicide after an inspection recently, I was speaking to a group of teachers who said that the most stressful thing that they have had in their lives—not this month or this year, but in their lives—was the inspection. They were good teachers in an excellent school and they achieved a wonderful rating. We have to do something about how the inspectorate is viewed and how it performs its task. In a good society and good educational system, there should not be such a reaction to inspection.
  In inspection, there should be such good co-operation that the school knows what to expect. We do not need a witch-finder general in education, to frighten people or to cause them stress. We have to get the balance better.

  233
  If we do not do that, I believe that something that is very good will be brought into disrepute. We need an inspection system that identifies weaknesses and problems, and then makes a positive partnership to get it right for the kids who are being taught in the schools and the teachers who teach them.
  In my experience, one does not get very far by frightening and demoralising people and then walking away. Yes to inspection—but let us go back to the very best of the old Her Majesty's inspectorates, which built, worked at and improved a positive relationship. If one thing would help teacher morale and increase recruitment, it would be that.
  8.35 pm
  Sandra Gidley: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate, because education was one of our key campaigning themes in the by-election.
  First, however, as is customary on these occasions, I pay tribute to my predecessor, the late Michael Colvin. It is impossible for me to pay tribute to Michael without also paying tribute to his wife, Nichola. They were very much two for the price of one, and a frequent and prominent sight in the constituency. I knew Michael for a number of years, and he was always very charming. My overwhelming memories, however, are of Nichola's warmth and generosity of spirit, and of Michael's charm and unerring knack of calming any troubled situation so that everyone came out of it feeling happy. I first heard the tragic news on my return from holiday in early March, and I still find it difficult to believe that they are no longer with us. On a personal level, they are missed by many people in the constituency.
  Many hon. Members attended the moving memorial service in Romsey abbey, and then had a small taste of what Romsey has to offer. Romsey is regarded by many people as a rural constituency. Although I grant that the constituency includes a large, attractive rural area which includes the River Test and an expanse of rolling Hampshire countryside, to me, constituencies are more about the people who live in them. In Romsey, 80 per cent. of constituents live in urban and suburban areas.
  The nature of the constituency is probably best reflected by looking at its senior schools. Test Valley school, which is in Stockbridge and serves the north of the constituency, has an excellent educational record that belies the fact that the headmistress often has to deal with real problems of rural deprivation.
  Moving closer to Romsey, there is Embley Park school, which is in the private sector. It is particularly interesting because it was once the home of Florence Nightingale.
  We also have Stanbridge Earls school, which is also in the private sector. It is, however, a different type of private school, with a strong record of helping children with dyslexia. Its examination results may not look good on paper, but they hide the fact that much good work is being done for pupils who have certain types of learning difficulty. We must not always look superficially at statistics.
  In Romsey itself, we have the Mountbatten school—which has educated my two children very well—and the excellent Romsey school. Both schools have strong academic records. Of particular note, however, is the
  234
  unique co-operation between the two schools. By working together, they have achieved joint specialist language status—a joint project partnership, involving the community, which will widen language learning opportunities in both the school and the community.
  Moving to the Chandlers Ford area, Thornden school has an outstanding academic record, with 74 per cent. of children obtaining five or more A to C passes at GCSE. The school has also received specialist status for its music provision. Toynbee school also has a good record and a good recognition of its sports provision.
  Moving towards the Southampton part of the constituency, the picture changes a little. The Atherley is a private school with an excellent reputation, but St. George's Catholic boys school presents a rather more interesting picture. The verdict of its last Ofsted inspection was that there were "serious weaknesses". Despite that, the school achieved a very creditable five or more GCSE pass rate of 59 per cent. The school has been through a difficult period, with four heads in three years. Unfortunately for the school, it is being Ofsteded this week. I hope for the sake of everybody there that it is going well.
  Last, but by no means least, is Cantell school. Its GCSE pass rate of 39 per cent. does not sound quite so good, but its catchment area includes some of the most deprived parts of Southampton. We are all too quick to judge a school by a superficial glance at the figures, but that does not reveal that the school has a strong community base and copes well with the broad ethnic mix of its pupils.
  Those are my local schools. Most are doing well at the moment, but we need to ensure that they continue to do well and that our education service continues to attract and retain teachers of the highest quality. I have come across many teachers in the past few weeks. I came across one lady who conforms to many of the averages. She had just left the teaching profession to start her own business, after teaching for just four years—the average life of a teacher entering the profession today. Her reasons for leaving were stress and bureaucratic overload.
  I was told today that 40 per cent. of our teachers are over 50. A teaching crisis looms, even though officially there is not one at the moment. Is there any good reason any more for anyone to want to become a teacher? We have more graduates than ever, but fewer of them want to become teachers. Salaries are part of the problem, particularly in trying to attract teachers with science, maths or modern language skills, especially in the prosperous south. However, that is only part of the problem. No one is trying to address the other problems of the demanding pupil population and the stress of having to deal with badly behaved, disaffected children. We have high expectations of our teachers. The public and politicians are slow to praise and quick to criticise. That is why I wanted to celebrate our local successes today.
  Then there is bureaucratic overload and central control, leading to a relentless pattern of long days, working over weekends and perpetual tiredness. One teacher told me that she works a 60-hour week and cannot physically or mentally work any harder, but she is now supposed to try to find the time to gather evidence towards performance-related pay. She simply cannot do it. She is one of many. All the evidence shows that performance-related pay is unsettling and highly divisive. It undermines staff morale and discourages team working.

  235
  The concern is that more pay will be given to teachers in high-performing schools, leaving schools in deprived areas at the end of the queue for good teachers.
  A profession is attractive only if its members feel that they have some professional freedom and are rewarded with respect and suitable pay. Professionalism for teachers has been diminished. As they are ever more straitjacketed, they are rapidly losing motivation, because they are increasingly being forced to teach to a formula.
  I have already noticed that there is a lot of inspiration and individuality in the way in which many Members of Parliament conduct themselves. Why do we not allow our teachers to show a little of the same?
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Derek Twigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on her thoughtful maiden speech. I did not agree with every word of it, but I know how nerve-racking a maiden speech can be, having made mine just a few years ago. I also express my sympathy to the family and friends of Michael Colvin on their tragic loss.
  I shall consider the issue from a different perspective from the Opposition. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the vast majority of teachers in my constituency and around the country. They do a great job under great pressure. The job has not got any easier. Given some of the pressures in society, it has become much more demanding. Teachers often have to be social workers as well. The Government have recognised that it can be very difficult.
  It would be remiss not to accept that there is a recruitment problem and we have not yet been able to do away with the morale problems, but that situation has not come about overnight. The problems have been entrenched for a while and dealing with them properly will take some time, but the Government have made a good start.
  Our education reforms have placed the emphasis on good teaching, improvement, getting better performance out of teachers and paying good teachers for good performance. In areas such as mine, before 1997, up to 50 per cent. of 11-year-olds were not reaching the required standards in maths and English. That was unacceptable. I understand the argument that we should just let teachers teach and get on with it, but we sometimes lose sight of the fact that in some areas, the standard of education that a child received was often determined by the lottery of which school they went to. Similarly, the choice of teacher within a school could sometimes be a lottery. No child deserves that. It is unacceptable for which school or teacher a child gets to be a matter of luck, which clearly was the case in some areas, not least in parts of my constituency. That is something that the Government have tried to do something about.
  I have young children and I have stood at school gates and heard parents say, "I hope my child gets Mrs. So-and-so next year, not Mr. So-and-so." That should not happen. We will always have exceptional teachers, and we have many of them, but it is not acceptable that parents have to hope that their child does not get a certain teacher.
  Teaching is a demanding, frustrating and stressful job at times, but many jobs are like that. Of course, teachers have an especial responsibility for our young people.
  236
  Teachers have an influence on children's futures, both at school and in their careers and contributions to society. Probably no other profession has such a profound effect and the Government recognise that. That is why we cannot just let poor teachers carry on as they always have before.
  We have seen continually rising standards since Labour came to power. Like most Members of Parliament, I have visited the schools in my constituency and seen the effect that the money from the Government has had. We want to see better pay for teachers, and the new system will achieve that. Substantial amounts of money are available, and the recruitment package that the Government have put together, better teacher training and the General Teaching Council are all attempts to try to improve the situation.
  I do not claim that everything in the garden is rosy. Problems still exist, and it will take time for some of the initiatives to take effect. Certain schools still have recruitment problems, and it is often—but not always—the case that those schools have some of the most difficult problems and worst results. That is no coincidence and it also sends a clear message.
  I know that some teachers worry about initiative overloads. I talked to a head teacher in my constituency and she said that she had a lot of work to do and was unable to do some of the things that she would like to do. I asked her about the literacy and numeracy hours, because they have been cited as part of the overload, but she said that the hours were having an effect and focusing classroom teaching on raising standards. A teacher told me last year that instead of trying to improve literacy individually and being interrupted by other children, she was able to help the whole class during the special hours.
  The Government have said that they wish to reduce bureaucracy. However, the suggestion that bureaucracy is a new problem under Labour is garbage. The Tories were famous for their initiatives. One of the teachers' union conferences illustrated that with stacks and stacks of paper. Teachers are always willing to talk about the burdens of the national curriculum, and we have tried to make some changes to it. The fact remains that the biggest burden was placed on teachers by the Tories, and I am still waiting for them to apologise.
  The literacy and numeracy hours are working. They are improving standards and giving more of our children a better chance. We have nothing to apologise for in that. Standards are rising, and that is what is important. Under the Tories, some 50 per cent. of children in my constituency were having great difficulty in reaching the standard. I have not forgotten that, and no one should.
  The Tories have said that people do not talk about what the Tories did, but people do because there is a clear contrast between what the Tories did and what we are doing. Education has been made a priority under Labour and we are making a difference for all our people, not just a few. After all, the Tories' proposal to improve standards is to have a grammar school in every town and I remember a Tory Front Bencher asking at Question Time recently why private schools could not have the extra money for information technology.
  Some schools have very outdated IT equipment and Labour is making a difference in that area. Schools are getting new equipment and having lines installed, and that will make a difference to children's IT skills. Our vision, together with improved teacher training in IT, is making a difference.

  237
  What is the Government's general education policy and how is it affecting teacher morale? I accept that there are pay issues and that teachers want to feel that they are valued. Indeed, I think that they are valued. Issues arise also about the environment in which they work and the resources that are made available to them. My constituency includes the towns of Widnes and Runcorn, and it provides an example of what the Government have been doing and how that will help the future of the teaching profession. There has been a 6 per cent. improvement in reading and writing standards over the past year, and a 10 per cent. increase in maths. Those are phenomenal and regular increases of which parents in Halton are aware.
  The overall increase in expenditure is much better than it was under the Tory Government. Ditton primary school in Widnes in my constituency waited 11 years for a completely new school building. In terms of teacher morale and support for teachers, the buildings are appalling. They are not fit for children. There is a split site and insufficient space, resulting in cramped conditions. What happened? The Labour Government provided the full sum that was needed to replace the school, not merely support for rebuilding costs. If a one-off example of improving the teaching environment is required, it is provided by Ditton primary school. There are also five new classrooms that have been provided in Halton.
  I talk to teachers who work in cramped classrooms with poor facilities. In many instances, office facilities are poor. However, there have been many improvements to schools that have struggled in some of the most deprived areas. The improvements have been badly needed and they have been made under a Labour Government.
  The new deal for schools was introduced recently. Eight or nine schemes have been approved in my constituency at a cost of about £1.8 million. Perhaps the teaching environment has been forgotten during the debate, but there are new science buildings for some schools along with better office facilities. One school has not had a playing field for 100 years. At long last it is getting one—and who from? It is being provided under the Labour Government. That will make a real difference.
  We have recently qualified for excellence in cities. Thousands of pounds have been made available this year and last year for new books in schools. Many secondary schools will receive an additional £50,000, while primary schools will receive an extra £9,000. I spoke to a head teacher, who said that she wants the money now. She cannot wait for it because there are so many things that she can do with it. The quicker that she receives the money, the better. These extra resources would never have been provided under the Tory Government.
  It seems that the class-size initiative for five, six and seven-year-olds has been forgotten. We want to improve class sizes overall, and we have made a start. We have seen the difference in infant classes. Teachers are saying that it is good news for them. In Halton this year, there will be no classes of more than 30 children for five, six and seven-year-olds. That is a tremendous achievement under the Labour Government. Again, it will help to boost teacher morale.
  There are various issues that surround exclusion, especially for certain schools. I am sure that the Government have listened to comments. There is talk
  238
  about providing facilities for pupils who have been excluded. There can be difficulties that lead to a decline in morale. I understand and accept that some schools were excluding pupils too easily while others took a much better approach. In those schools, exclusion was a rarity. They did all that they could to support pupils who might have been subject to exclusion. The issue has been raised by a head teacher in my constituency.
  We must give the reforms a proper chance. Teachers are delivering in a way that we have not seen for some time. They are doing so in a broad sense throughout schools and classrooms. A pupil's teacher or the school which he or she attends is becoming much less of a lottery, and that is a clear message. The Government have no apology to make to parents for raising standards. Indeed, the raising of them is something of which we can be proud, and something which parents want to see. We shall be judged on the issue when we come to the next general election, and that will be in our favour.
  There is a need for support and partnership, but Governments have a responsibility to raise standards and improve education. We should never forget that teachers are a pivotal part of that process. It is incumbent upon us to form a partnership with teachers.
  Finally, education is crucial in areas such as mine. For many years, some schools, teachers and pupils have under-performed. I said earlier that some 50 per cent. of pupils did not reach the appropriate standard at age 11, but that figure is improving. I make no apology for the fact that I come from a working-class, council-estate background, but I do not think that coming from a difficult or deprived background is an excuse for lower results.
  The hon. Member for Romsey mentioned a school in her constituency that is in a deprived area. However, there is no excuse for such schools producing poor results. A lot of good-quality teaching goes on in such schools, and good results are being obtained. Social factors must be taken into account, but they should never be an excuse for poor performance.
  All schools should attain average or above-average results. Schools in parts of my constituency are achieving better results: where they were attaining percentage scores in the late teens and low 20s, they are now achieving scores of between 42 and 44 per cent. One particular school has doubled its achievement levels in three or four years. Part of the community served by that school is among the most socially and economically deprived in the area, but that merely shows that the argument that such schools cannot improve is wrong.
  Teachers have a pivotal role in such improvement. Most of them do a great and valuable job, but we cannot accept that any teacher should be able to get away with not delivering for our children. We must press ahead with the reforms, although I agree that we need to do more for teacher morale. We can do so, and I am sure that our policies will prove to be right.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I hope that the House will find that the two things that I want to say are pleasant and complimentary. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on her outstanding maiden speech, in which she outlined those parts of her constituency that are especially interesting from the point of view of education.

  239
  I also thank the hon. Lady for the very gracious, warm and lovely compliments that she paid to our late friend Mr. Colvin, and to his wife, Nichola. We treasure our memories of both of them and much regret their departure. I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing from the hon. Lady often in the future, and to benefiting from her presence.
  Secondly, like the hon. Members for Halton (Mr. Twigg) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I take great pleasure in paying a compliment to the teachers in my constituency. Over the past 20 years, under Conservative as well as Labour Governments, education has improved in this country. I am not interested in a party political scrap on the matter, but the teachers who have achieved that improvement deserve to be complimented.
  Many teachers in my constituency are married women, and the job of teaching fits well with their duties in the household and as mothers. We are very fortunate to have many highly qualified teachers who have helped schools to improve their standards. Many hon. Members have described how hard teachers work, day in and day out. I was a teacher and I remember very well how drained and exhausted one felt, having given all one's mental capacity to the job.
  We must pay enormous compliments to teachers, as their achievements are not confined to pushing up academic standards. Their work is evident in music and on school playing fields, for example, and in the many extracurricular activities from which pupils benefit hugely. All the schools in my constituency have improved over the past 20 years. Some difficulties remain, but I do not want my compliments to the teachers to be overshadowed by the problems that we still face.
  However, one such problem is that many women will not enter the teaching profession in the future. The statistics show that in the next 10 to 15 years the teaching profession faces a huge exodus of experienced teachers whose children have grown up and who wish to retire. The problem, which is becoming a crisis, is how to recruit sufficient teachers to replace those who leave the profession. We need more men, as well as women. There are many more opportunities available to women than there were 20, 30 or 40 years ago. I rejoice in the fact that they are entering all kinds of professions and activities, but that means that they will not be available to teach in our schools. That will create a recruitment and retention crisis.
  The hon. Member for Romsey talked about a lady who had taught for four years—the average length of time that someone teaches—and was going to start up her own business. That is typical of what happens and, while it is to be welcomed, it creates a problem that we must all face.
  We must work hardest to tackle this problem in the inner-city areas. The inner cities are letting our children down because there is no stability in the teaching force. Schools in inner cities have the greatest concentration of supply teachers and unqualified teachers. This January, almost one teacher in 20 was a temporary supply teacher or an instructor. Before he gets over-excited, the Secretary of State should know that an instructor is an unqualified teacher. The number is going up—for the second year running there are 3,000 instructors. According to John Howson, visiting professor at Oxford Brookes university,
  240
  instructors are supposed to be used by schools only as a last resort, as they usually lack formal training and teaching skills.
  Unqualified and supply teachers provide the major teaching force in our inner-city schools. Who makes up inner-city populations? Very often, they are dominated by minorities—black, Asian and immigrant populations. We should be ashamed of having unqualified and supply teachers in schools that do not enable children to grow up with a capacity to compete with their peers. I have had to advise some parents to send their children back to the West Indies, where they will find a higher standard of teaching, a higher standard of school and a more stable teaching force compared with what is available in schools in London and other cities.
  We should be concerned about that. We must find a way of attracting teachers into schools and then retaining them. In my view, we must pay them more, even if that means creating jealousy among teachers in my constituency who do not earn as much. Indeed, the Government have done this—they are attracting more teachers to the subjects in which there are is an insufficient teaching force, particularly maths and science.
  There should be a differential in the pay scales. I welcome performance-related pay, but I do not think that the Government have got it right. I was talking to a friend who is a teacher and is, of course, tempted to apply for the £2,000 performance-related pay rise on offer from the Government. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that it is quite easy to do that and that the Government are not over-burdening teachers with bureaucracy. Let me tell the House what teachers have to do, on top of their teaching load, and on top of helping pupils revise for their A-levels. They have to submit evidence, giving concrete examples from the past few years, that they
  Have a thorough and up-to-date knowledge of their subjects.
  Consistently and effectively plan lessons to meet individual pupils' needs, use a range of appropriate strategies for teaching and classroom management, and use information about prior attainment to set their pupils appropriate targets.
  Take responsibility for their professional development and make an active contribution to the school's policies and aspirations.
  Challenge and support all pupils to do their best by inspiring trust and confidence, building team commitment, engaging and motivating pupils, thinking analytically and taking positive action to improve the quality of pupils' learning.
  They have to fill in a six-page application form proving that their pupils make good progress as a result of their teaching.
  That is a burden on each teacher wishing to benefit from performance-related pay. It is over-burdensome and over-bureaucratic, and will not achieve the objectives. Teachers to whom I have spoken say that they do not have the time, that they are too exhausted and simply will not apply.
  The Government must look at the matter and get it right. It is not right now, and I should like an undertaking from the Minister replying to the debate that the Government will look at the system, streamline it and make it easier, so that many more teachers can benefit from what has been put forward as an incentive for them to teach well. I do not think that it will work under the present system.
  Much has been said about the extra money coming into schools. In fact, in my constituency less money is coming into schools. Many of them have been grant-maintained

  241
  and have been cut back year after year after year. They are now having to cut back on the teaching force, and pupil numbers in my secondary schools are going up. There may be an increase overall. I am not a Minister and do not know the centralised facts and figures that they keep repeating on the radio to anybody who listens. In schools in my constituency pupil numbers per class are going up and the amount of money coming into the schools is going down.
  Even with the recent announcements of additional money, that money will not come to my schools. Therefore, there is a high degree of stress in the schools in my constituency. It is no good crowing that "education, education, education" is being given to all people in this country—the money is simply not coming into many schools.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Would my hon. Friend also note that the cut in budgets for grant-maintained schools came in spite of a clear pledge from the Secretary of State that budgets for non-grant-maintained schools would be increased to the level of grant-maintained schools? What the Government have done is precisely the opposite: they have cut the budget for schools that were grant-maintained.
  Mr. Wells: The Government have indeed cut the amount of money going to grant-maintained schools, which are now called foundation schools. The result is that we are getting higher numbers in each class and the teachers find it much more difficult to achieve the standards that they want to achieve on behalf of their pupils. Far from there being less stress, there is far more in those circumstances. The Ministers in charge should take note of that. I hope that they will listen to what I have said and to what my hon. Friend has said and do something about it, because the situation cannot go on for long without something breaking.
  Another matter that is very serious and needs attention is the secondary school transfer system, which the Government are severely changing, resulting in very serious stress for many parents and many pupils in my constituency. The Government have to find a way to make the secondary school transfer much less stressful both to pupils and parents. They should drop the ideological idea that they must create community schools, and should advance more along the line of finding schools for pupils—that is, have a variety of schools with different specialities to which people can go, wherever they come from, whether in my case from Essex, from Bishop's Stortford or from the villages.
  Whether pupils want a technical education, an academic education or a musical education, or whether they want a school concentrating on sports, that choice should be available to them. They should not be forced into the nearest school, but nor should they have to travel across the town—as they are being forced to do in Bishop's Stortford—because there is no place for them at a nearby secondary school that they want to attend. The secondary school transfer system is not working; it needs to be rethought and thoroughly overhauled.
  The real way to push up standards will be by concentrating on the courses for teachers at training colleges. The colleges must increase and improve the standards required for those entering the teaching
  242
  profession. At present, primary teachers are not required to achieve sufficient A-level and GCSE passes—indeed, they do not always need A-levels to get into teacher training.
  We need more highly qualified teachers. The foundations for numeracy and literacy are set in primary schools. The colleges need to raise standards for primary teachers, although that is not to say that we should neglect standards for secondary schools, but children spend those foundation years 1 to 5 in primary schools. We should then tell teachers to teach to the standards that they learned in college and that they will be inspected to ensure that they are doing so. We should reward those teachers adequately and differentially, so as to attract more people into the profession.
  Teaching is a vocation. People do not go into teaching just for the money, but for the huge satisfaction of helping children—perhaps those who perform least well. They can help such children pull themselves up and become stars in their own right. We should be attracting people into the profession so that they can experience the joy of helping others to learn.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Colin Burgon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on her highly effective maiden speech. I look forward to hearing from her again—after the next general election as well.
  Most of the speeches so far have been decidedly non-partisan. I hope that we can carry on in that vein. I bring to the debate my experience of some 16 years as a teacher. Most of that time was spent in the classroom, in a fairly tough school in east Leeds—I still bear the scars of one or two clashes with my pupils. Some of my friends and relations are also in teaching. As a Member of Parliament, I keep in touch with schools in my constituency and with teachers who live there.
  Present-day teaching is a hard job; it gets harder as each year goes by. Anyone who thinks that Mr. Chips, Billy Bunter or Greyfriars are still around in our education system must be from another planet. To be blunt, teaching in many of our schools is a hard grind. It is not glamorous and is carried on in difficult circumstances.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) pointed out, teaching can be a lonely job. When that classroom door closes, the teacher is, in effect, alone. When the door used to close behind me, I often thought of the American humorist who said:
  For every person wishing to teach, there are 30 not wanting to be taught.
  I can assure hon. Members that I battled against that apathy.
  The strain of teaching in difficult conditions should not be underestimated, especially when teachers face daily challenges to their authority, personality and ideas of self-worth. In a world that is increasingly assertive, litigious and consumer driven, the job of teaching is becoming harder and harder. I contend that the classroom teacher is the most vital element in the whole educational process. Our support—in all its forms—for that teacher should be of prime concern.
  In that respect, I am delighted to highlight three facts from the Labour Government's record. First, under the Conservatives spending fell by £60 per pupil in their last

  243
  three Budgets. Since we were elected, spending has risen by £300 per pupil in real terms. Secondly, education spending is forecast to increase by more than 16 per cent. in real terms in this Parliament compared with an 8 per cent. rise in the previous Parliament. Thirdly, we have invested to improve and modernise schools, with more than 11,000 of them already allocated funding through the new deal for schools. Several hon. Members have alluded to the improvements that have taken place in their constituencies and I echo their comments.
  Specifically in relation to teachers, I wish to highlight about half a dozen moves that the Government have taken. In addition to the annual pay increase that all teachers receive, from September the majority should be eligible for a further £2,000 with the new performance threshold payments. What especially pleases me is that, for the first time, teachers have the prospect of significant pay progression within, and recognition of, the core job of classroom teaching.
  In my days in classroom teaching, I often thought that two brands of teachers fled the classroom. The first were those who were very effective and wanted to progress in their careers. The only way that they could do that was to go more into administration in a school. Secondly and quite bluntly, the second group was made up of those who were incompetent in the classroom. They were kicked into higher-paid administration jobs, which did nothing for the morale of teachers in the classroom. I have always and consistently taken the view that the most undervalued section of the teaching force is the classroom teacher.
  To support classroom teachers, I am pleased to read that, by April 2002, about 20,000 non-teaching assistants or learning support assistants will be in place. Initially, teachers reacted in a guarded way to the implementation of the programme, but they now welcome the assistants because they recognise that they give valuable assistance to, for example, pupils with statements. That particular Government initiative is to be praised.
  I am glad that the Government have recognised that the burden of administration can be especially disproportionate in small schools, many of which are in my constituency.
  Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's initiative, which values and expands the role of the classroom assistant, lays the bedrock for classroom assistants possibly becoming the fully qualified teachers that we hope to have in a few years time?
  Mr. Burgon: As always, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point and, as always, I agree with her.
  I move quickly on to flag up the fact that £80 million of funding for small schools will allow them to employ extra administrative staff. The Government have consulted on, and agreed, an information management strategy for schools and local education authorities. It aims to help raise standards by cutting unnecessary data collection and promoting more effective use of information. About £700 million is being invested in the national grid for learning programme for schools up to 2002 and one of its key targets is that, by 2002, communications, including data collection, should cease to be largely paper based.
  244
  The final initiative that I particularly welcome is the excellence in cities initiative, which will bring nearly £20 million into my home city of Leeds. I have had a long chat with teachers in Leeds about that and they are especially pleased with the introduction of learning mentors. These non-teaching but skilled people identify under-achieving children and plan an effective programme to help them. Learning mentors can be employed for holiday periods or after school hours and that very flexibility adds to their effectiveness in helping teachers.
  Excellence in cities also aims to identify the top 5 or 10 per cent. of gifted and talented pupils in what would not be classed as our most salubrious schools so that they can be given extra support. That allows teachers to put plans in place beyond the normal curriculum to expand the learning capacity and experience of, say, a pupil who is a gifted musician, a gifted rugby player or a gifted badminton player. Thankfully, Leeds does not need too many gifted footballers, because the place is already crammed with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thank Members for that support.
  So much of what the Government are doing is praiseworthy and has been welcomed by teachers. However, if we are honest and listen to teachers, we have to be aware that they face problems that we should do our best to address. Most teachers to whom I speak actively support the individual initiatives undertaken by this Labour Government.
  Literacy and numeracy hours, updating teachers in the use of information and communications technology and excellence in the cities are all welcomed by teachers. However, we must be honest and accept that they regard the number and frequency of the initiatives as a problem. The Government take the view that children get only one chance, and they make no apology for hurrying to raise standards. As a parent with a nine-year-old daughter in school, I have no problem with that.
  One might argue that, in effect, the Government are pushing through a cultural revolution in education, which will ultimately benefit hundreds of thousands of children. As with all revolutions—which we have read about in books, even if we have not experienced one ourselves—we must carry the key groups with us as we strive to achieve our aims. Supporters of change must be largely self-motivated and enthused. In my opinion, the classroom teacher is the key agency in delivering the improvements that we want.
  Of course, as with any revolution, people need a period of stability, or at least the prospect of stability. The Government have done a great deal, and I urge them to listen carefully to what teachers are saying about the number and frequency of initiatives and the need for a bedding-in process. I shall give some practical examples, based on my experience and contact with teachers, on which we could perhaps move forward together.
  Could we not examine the period needed to review an application for threshold pay? Recently, a head teacher told me that it is estimated that it will take three hours or so to assess each individual case going through the process. For example, if 30 members of staff have applied for one of those payments, that will work out as 90 hours of extra work for the school head. Even I, who have not been through the numeracy hour, can work that out. Will Ministers examine how head teachers are meant to find that time?

  245
  The document "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change" examines the idea of sabbaticals. The scheme is already in use in countries such as Austria and Israel. To avoid what is known as burn-out in teaching, we should introduce sabbaticals as soon as possible. I certainly wish that I could have had one. After, perhaps, 10 years' service, a teacher should be able to have a term or six months off to pursue work or outside interests. There may well be losses to the profession, but that may be a good thing if people are unhappy or unsettled. We would find that the vast majority of teachers would return to teaching committed, refreshed and reinvigorated.
  The issue of summer holidays is also connected to burn-out. Some may think that hon. Members are vulnerable in discussing that but, of course, we all work tremendously hard during that period. I know how and why I looked forward to the summer break as a teacher. Those who have not been in teaching cannot understand the treadmill nature of the job. Day after day, the curriculum and timetable bear down on teachers, so they desperately need that break. I agree with the National Union of Teachers which, in its evidence to the commission on the organisation of the school year, said that
  the summer break is essential to allow teachers and pupils to recuperate from the stress and workload of the school year and to gear up for the next.
  I therefore urge the Government not to press ahead with ideas about shortening the summer holidays without the clear support of all teachers.
  Discipline is another vital issue on which the Government need to support classroom teachers. The idea that most teachers are unreconstructed versions of Wackford Squeers is untenable. Many teachers facing classes in difficult schools have a daily battle on their hands. If we accept that we need order in classrooms as a necessary precondition for learning, we must adopt policies to achieve that objective. The excellence in cities initiative involves an inclusion policy and funding for learning support units, which will take pupils who prove to be too difficult to be taught in the normal classroom situation. The Government must monitor closely the effectiveness of those units and ensure that we listen to teachers involved in them.
  In addition, the language that we use about teachers is sometimes a bit inconsiderate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, Ofsted is trying to be increasingly school and teacher friendly. I welcome that much more open approach. It may well be that the teaching unions could club together and send Mr. Woodhead on a crash course in diplomacy. That might be welcomed by a majority of teachers.
  I know that Ministers will listen to the points that I have raised, for they, like me and the teaching profession, are overwhelmingly united in a desire to improve standards in education and with that the life chances of our people. Teachers cannot stand alone. They cannot be expected to address every conceivable problem that finds its way into the classroom, but if they know that they have a Government who listen, care and are committed to shared goals, we will be able to achieve a tremendous amount in this most vital of all human activities—education.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: Given the lateness of the hour and the shortness of time, I shall be brief.
  I pay tribute to the first-class maiden speech of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley). She did extraordinarily well. I know that those of us on the Conservative Benches particularly welcomed her comments on her predecessor; both Michael and Nichola Colvin will be much missed. However, it is clear that the hon. Lady will make some interesting contributions to our debates, which I look forward to hearing. I hope that she enjoys her time in the House.
  I agreed with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Education Sub-Committee, who is not now present, particularly the point that he—and the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon)—made about the need for backing up teachers who are trying to enforce discipline. The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that we should consider how we might move away from circumstances in which teachers believe that they can be treated as guilty until proven innocent, simply on the word of one child who might have a reason for making up a rather unpleasant story about them.
  I pay particular tribute to the teachers in my constituency. In the past couple of weeks or so, I have visited Crosscrake primary school near Kendal and Settlebeck secondary school in Sedbergh, where there is excellent and inspirational teaching. I should, on behalf of the teachers in my constituency, confirm the point made in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that, for those of us who have a majority of former grant-maintained secondary schools in our constituencies, the first years of this Government were not a cornucopia of additional funding. It was quite the contrary; they were years of cuts and, in some cases, reductions in teaching staff, which were necessitated by the Government breaking their clear election pledges and lowering funding for those schools.
  For a number of parents in the Kendal area particularly, the imposition of the Government's rigid target of 30 pupils for classes of five-year olds has meant in that growing town, in which the number of applicants for schools is also growing, the separation of siblings. Those who were able in some families to get into a school a few years ago are not able to do so now. That has caused distress and also appears to have been bought at the expense of growing class sizes for those aged eight and over.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield said one other thing, which I must pick up. He implied that, in her superb speech, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made up some quotations from teachers. It should be on record that the quotations were provided by the National Union of Teachers. If the Chairman of the Select Committee is alleging that the NUT makes up quotations from its members, that is very serious and rather regrettable.
  I could not help but notice that the Secretary of State claimed something fairly remarkable in his speech. He said that not only were teachers not particularly fussed by the amount of bureaucracy and paperwork imposed on

  247
  them, they welcomed some additional paperwork that they could access by logging on to the Department for Education and Employment website.
  We have a Secretary of State who appears to live in a world where teachers, having given their best in the classroom, having gone home to complete course work, marking and reports and having flogged their way through the forms of the day and all the rest of it, are so desperately anxious that they might have run out of things to do that they log on to the internet and go to the DFEE website where, yippee, they find more work. We need a Secretary of State who lives in the real world.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: This has been a very good debate, adorned by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who made a model maiden speech. I am sure that her remarks about Michael and Nichola Colvin were appreciated throughout the House and struck a chord with all who knew them. Her warm words were much appreciated. She also made some interesting points about her constituency, and those hon. Members on both sides who said that they looked forward to hearing her speak again were speaking for the whole House.
  The debate began with a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). She made it clear at the outset that we did not set out to denigrate teachers, and it does not do justice to her case to suggest that we did. Those who listened to her speech will have heard her pay a warm tribute to teachers and place on record our appreciation of the hard work that they do.
  That appreciation was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who gave teachers full credit for their work to raise standards, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who put on the record his appreciation of teachers in his constituency. Both were right to draw attention to the problems of grant-maintained schools. I can confirm from my own experience that the pupil-teacher ratio in grant-maintained schools has deteriorated since the general election, and that such schools have suffered financial problems as a result of the Government's failure to honour their commitment to level up. Grant-maintained schools have found their budgets, in effect, frozen and they have been forced to make difficult economies and to appeal for funds from certain quarters.
  From the other side of the House, we heard speeches from the hon. Members for Halton (Mr. Twigg), for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the last of whom I congratulate on his appointment as Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment. Like him, I am interested in issues of criminal justice; the comments he made about teachers who face allegations of abuse were thoughtful and interesting, and I am sure that we shall return to the subject in future debates.
  We also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). He said that, sadly, he was forced to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. I shall
  248
  return the sentiment by saying that, sadly, I am forced to agree with him, especially his remark that there is a gap between the fine words of the Prime Minister and the actions of the Government. That gap is obvious to everyone. There is a gap between what teachers were promised in 1997 and what the Government have delivered.
  In case that had escaped Labour Members' attention, we told them about the experiences of teachers. Teachers are not exactly jumping for joy about what has been done since 1997; still less are they dancing with glee at the prospect of the Government's bureaucratic plan for performance-related pay. We have heard about teacher after teacher facing stress and problems arising from increased bureaucracy, but I make no apologies for adding one or two more examples to the long list that we have heard already.
  Angie Rutter, a teacher of special needs children, spoke for many when she told the Daily Mail last week
  I went into the profession because I enjoy working with children. I get a buzz out of seeing children learn… But in those days most of us didn't realise that all this paperwork was coming. There's a limit to how much you can take on board.
  Those sentiments were echoed by a head teacher in my constituency, Mr. Nick Nelson, who was so disgusted by the volume of documents that landed on his desk one morning that he took the step of writing to the Secretary of State to protest. It should be acknowledged that not all of the 10 documents came from the Department for Education and Employment, but six of them did. When one hears, as we have this evening, that the Department has issued 366 separate documents since 1997, it is not surprising that teachers such as Mr. Nelson have been driven to despair.
  If the Government will not heed those examples, perhaps they will listen to the views revealed by the National Association of Head Teachers. Some Labour Members have said that what we have told the House does not accord with what they have been told by teachers and head teachers, but perhaps they will listen to the NAHT, which conducted a survey of 3,200 head teachers. The headline conclusion of the survey is that there is
  an urgent need to reduce workloads and stress amongst heads and to reduce the number of tasks which are of little value to the education of pupils or to the effective running of schools.
  If the Government will not take the NAHT's word for it, perhaps they will take that of Lord Haskins, of the better regulation taskforce. Generally, he is far from being a friend of the Opposition, but the headline conclusion of his report states that
  there is a widespread and deeply held view that increased red tape is acting as a distraction from the drive to raise standards.
  When asked about that at the launch of his taskforce report, he admitted that the outlook for a business with similar handicaps would be "virtually zero".
  It is time the Government began to listen to the volume of evidence about the work load that is being placed on teachers and, in particular, on head teachers. Perhaps they will listen to a head teacher who responded to the NAHT survey. When asked how he had managed to cope, he said:
  To cope, I drink alcohol and employ staff with a sense of humour.
  I am not suggesting that teachers have been driven to drink by the Government, and I do not condone excessive drinking, but a good sense of humour would come in

  249
  handy in dealing with a Government who issue toolkits for cutting bureaucracy—a two-volume handbook on good practice in cutting bureaucracy; who produce such a volume of plans that they need a plan of plans co-ordinating all the other plans; and who refer teachers to the Department for Education and Employment website on cutting burdens on teachers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to that. I can tell him that if teachers had consulted that website at the end of a busy working day, I am not sure how much use they would have found it. They would, however, have been given access to EASEA, which is described as a means to
  keep up to date on policy developments with your own customised electronic intray of DfEE publications for schools.
  The tip of the day for teachers from the Department for Education and Employment website today is:
  The school office collects money for school trips.
  I am sure that teachers would never have thought of that.
  Against that background of helpful tips from the Government, we are concerned about the effect on recruitment to teacher training. We understand from the Secretary of State that that is a world problem. That may be so, but it has got markedly worse in this country since the Government came to office.
  The number of applicants for secondary training courses in particular has gone down significantly. In recruitment to initial teacher training courses, applications are down by 9 per cent. for mathematics, 15 per cent. for science and almost 13 per cent. for technology since the Government took office.
  On the Government's statistics, for technology teaching the number of applications has gone down every year since the Government took office, and it is still going down. It is down markedly on the numbers applying under the previous Government, and the Government fell 41 per cent. short of their target for technology teachers. Although the Government make great play of technology, teachers are not coming into the profession to teach the subject.
  The Secretary of State referred to the golden hellos and all the other schemes that the Government have introduced. On the basis of figures in May 2000 for teachers starting in September 2000, it seems that the problem is getting worse. Mathematics applications are down by 15 per cent., science applications are down by 12 per cent. and technology applications are down by 17 per cent. That is after the introduction of the Government's much-vaunted golden hellos.
  In the words of the old song, it seems that the Government are saying hello, but the applicants are saying goodbye. They are not applying for those courses. To confirm the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), they are also not applying for BEd courses; applications for those courses are down as well. The Secretary of State mentioned that in his opening speech this evening.
  The problem with the debate about class sizes, which is of interest to teachers and parents, is that the Government tend to be selective in their statements about the subject. We hear much about class sizes at key stage 1, on which the Government made a pledge. However, we hear less about class sizes for other age groups. Key stage 2 classes are larger today than when the Government took office.
  250
  The Secretary of State referred to smaller junior class sizes as an achievement on the Government's part. However, they have managed only a reduction in the higher figure, which they created after taking office. The figure remains higher than when the Government took office. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) may shake her head, but the Government provided the statistics.
  Matters are even worse in secondary schools, where class sizes have increased every year since the Government took office. More pupils than ever are in classes of more than 30. The classes that have increased most are those for children under 14, yet the Government claim that they need particular attention.
  The problem is reflected in pupil-teacher ratios, about which we hear from the Prime Minister from time to time. He is somewhat selective about the subject. There is some excuse for that: the Prime Minister may be selective about facts because he receives an inadequate briefing from specific quarters. Perhaps I can assist hon. Members by providing the full picture on pupil-teacher ratios.
  In 1997, the overall figure for pupil-teacher ratios for all schools—I am not selecting some and leaving out others—was 18.6; in 1998, it increased to 18.9; in 1999, it decreased slightly to 18.8. The prediction for 2000 is that the figure will decrease to 18.6. What a wonderful achievement by new Labour. The Government have managed to return to the position that they inherited in 1997 and about which they complained. The figures increased in the subsequent three years. The Government have delivered nothing on pupil-teacher ratios. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State disputes the figures, they came from the Department and were placed in the Library.
  I shall give the Secretary of State another statistic on an achievement by the Department. According to a written answer he gave me recently, he has managed to double the Department's advertising budget in the past three years on top of all the press releases and extra regulation.
  I am tempted to say that the Government's performance on teaching is all mouth and no delivery. However, when considering red tape, a better description would be all mouth and too much delivery. The teaching profession is being suffocated by the volume of red tape and burdensome regulations. Ministers refuse to listen or accept that. Ministers in the Department for Education and Science are the biggest culprits. They talk about cutting bureaucracy, but they continue to churn it out, to the frustration of teachers. That leads to teachers leaving the profession and possibly deters others from joining it. The Department's actions do not assist teachers' cause.
  We pay tribute to teachers, who deserve credit. We are worried about the burdens that the Government are placing on them. The voice of teachers has been heard from all parties in the debate.
  Ms Dari Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clappison: I shall not give way at this stage because hon. Members have had an opportunity to speak. When Labour Members return to their constituencies, they must face the fact that they have failed to deliver their promises. They have delivered far too many burdens and regulations, failed to help children and not stood the teaching profession in good stead.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I thank hon. Members for their contributions and, in particular, congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on making a well-informed maiden speech in which she clearly showed an understanding of and concern for the schools in her constituency. She also paid a generous tribute to her predecessor and his wife. As hon. Members have said, we look forward to hearing many more speeches from her.
  The views expressed in this interesting debate reflect the importance of highly skilled, highly motivated teachers to our national well-being. I should like to thank teachers, as have many other hon. Members, for their commitment and hard work, which is producing results for our children. The successful introduction of the literacy and numeracy strategies, higher key stage 2 results, better results for our 16-year-olds in GCSEs and GNVQs and the fact that schools come out of special measures within 18 months rather than 25 all show that teachers have responded to the challenge and are delivering for our children.
  We know that we have set a challenging pace of change and recognise the challenges and pressures that that puts on schools and teachers, but we are not interested in change for its own sake. We are interested in outcomes—what we can achieve to raise standards for our children and ensuring that opportunities for higher standards are open to all our children, whatever their background. We are passionate about continuous improvement and helping teachers to do what they do best—teach and raise standards.
  The culture that we want in our schools is one not of permanent revolution, but of permanent improvement because that is what our children deserve. It is no good simply telling schools to improve. That call must be backed up with the resources needed to make improvement possible and the support that schools and individual teachers need to find out how they can improve.
  The Government are providing that support—an extra £300 million is going to schools as a result of the Budget. As part of that, secondary head teachers will receive between £30,000 and £50,000 each to spend as they choose. I assure the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that the schools in his constituency will receive that money, which they can use as they wish.
  Schools could use that money to buy 3,500 extra teachers£enough to ensure yet another substantial cut in class sizes and, consequently, in teacher work load.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister has made an important point: she says that that money could be used to employ teachers. Will she guarantee now that money would be available for those teachers in future years?
  Jacqui Smith: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we have shown our commitment to putting more money into schools; we have delivered on it and will continue to do so.
  252
  We have made £5.9 billion available to improve school premises. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) rightly highlighted the effect that the school environment has on raising standards. The Government have delivered on that and are providing up to £1 billion this year and next for the improvements proposed in the teaching Green Paper, including better teachers' pay.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Halton and for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) made thoughtful speeches and referred to the challenges faced by those who teach disruptive pupils. The Government recognise the pressures and challenges that teachers face. That is why we have already made more money available to support schools and teachers in dealing with those children and why my right hon. Friend recently announced further support for schools and teachers such as learning mentors and learning support units.
  Hon. Members will be aware of the descriptions given in the media—and, I regret, on the Floor of the House—of demoralised, disenchanted teachers waiting only for the first chance to leave the profession. That is not the teaching profession that I recognise nor that which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) eloquently described. Thousands of dedicated people are working to help the children in their charge to reach upwards, whatever their background. Their success is shown time and again—not only when exam results are published.
  As class sizes are falling, the number of teachers is increasing. There are now nearly 3,000 more teachers in permanent posts than there were last year, and the percentage of unfilled posts in schools is less than half of what it was 10 years ago. For every secondary-school vacancy there is an average of 12 applicants, and for every primary-school vacancy there are 16. That is not evidence of a profession that is in decline, but evidence of one that is at last beginning to be properly resourced in terms of money, support, training and leadership.
  I was concerned by some of what was said by the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) about supply teaching. We need to make it clear that supply teachers are qualified: they have qualified-teacher status.
  Mr. Willis: Will the Minister give way?
  Jacqui Smith: No, because Opposition Members did not.
  Quality, however, needs to be approved. We are consulting on measures to introduce a quality mark. to provide a distance-learning package and to give more support to teachers in schools.
  Mr. Willis: Will the Minister give way?
  Hon. Members: Give way!
  Jacqui Smith: No, I will not.
  It is because we recognised the need to ensure that good-quality people come into teaching and that "shortage" subjects were covered that we announced, on

  253
  30 March, a package of measures to boost teacher training recruitment, involving a training salary of £6,000, £150 a week for all secondary postgraduates during their training, and a further £4,000 for those who find posts as newly qualified maths, modern foreign languages, science and technology teachers. Since that announcement, applications for postgraduate teacher training courses are 22 per cent. up on those in the same period last year, and 500 more people have applied than did so during the corresponding six weeks in 1999.
  Mr. Willis: Will the Minister give way?
  Jacqui Smith: I will give way now.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I thank her for her courtesy.
  My point was not about supply teachers. I accept that most supply teachers are fully qualified. I was talking about people who are teaching in our schools, but do not have formal teaching qualifications.
  Jacqui Smith: I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to that point earlier.
  Let me make a point about the hon. Gentleman's commitment to getting more people into the teaching profession, which I do not doubt. Tonight he has taken a statesmanlike and, dare I say, headmasterly approach to the debate—not an approach that he took in his speech to the National Union of Teachers, which he commended for its militancy. He said:
  Well it is just like old times! Government ministers being heckled! Conference in militant mood! Delegates walking out! Well conference it is about time teachers displayed their anger at the way they are being treated!
  I do not think that that is the sort of example we would want to set the people whom we are trying to encourage into the profession.
  Many have commented on the burdens being placed on teachers, especially paperwork. Let us be honest about what is being distributed to schools. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the vast majority of communications sent to them this year have concerned the literacy and numeracy strategy, teaching reform and pay. Only two documents sent to primary schools, and three sent to secondary schools, required responses from head teachers.
  Is it being suggested that we should not have supported teachers in their delivery of higher standards in reading, writing and maths? Should we not be telling schools about the support and training that are available to implement teacher reforms and higher pay? I accept the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield and for Elmet about the need to communicate, about the threshold, and about the importance of supporting head teachers. That is why we must communicate with schools, which is what we are doing.
  The Conservatives, of course, oppose the literacy and numeracy strategy. They are not clear about performance-related pay: that is why they oppose our communications with schools. However, I am keen for us to free up teachers to teach.
  254
  As has been mentioned, the Haskins report identified the steps that we have already taken and that are planned. It said, for example:
  We found that the Government's radical agenda for raising standards in schools is widely respected and already seen to be delivering results. Additional regulation is inevitable in implementing such an agenda.
  However, I am concerned that we ensure that we do everything that we can to free up teachers to teach. That is why we introduced rigorous—
  Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?
  Jacqui Smith: No.
  That is why we introduced rigorous controls over—
  Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?
  Jacqui Smith: No. The hon. Gentleman did not.
  That is why we introduced rigorous controls over what is sent to schools and are increasingly making publications and information available on the internet—an innovation mocked by the Opposition. As they are keen to quote teachers, may I quote two comments about our EASEA website? One person said:
  I find access to the material straightforward and it is helpful that my own office does not become cluttered with paper.
  Another person said:
  The In-tray has shown itself to be very useful in accessing relevant documents; can it now be developed as suggested by another respondent to include information from other agencies?
  There is support for our activities from those people who are using the system.
  We are working vigorously to reduce unnecessary requests for information from the centre and to improve management systems at all levels in the education service. We estimate that, since August, our changes to what is collected and to how it is collected have saved about 10,000 hours of work for schools and local education authorities.
  As was recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet, we are aware of the pressures that fall on small schools. That is why we have gone even further in providing support for them. This year and next, £80 million will be available, so that small schools can employ extra administration staff and invest in information and communication technology to help with administration.
  We are funding the recruitment of 20,000 teaching assistants to help teachers in the classroom. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield made an important point about Ofsted. We have already acted to reduce the lead-in time and developed light-touch inspections.
  The Opposition have been quick to carp, but slow to tell us what they would not have done and not have issued. Do they want to scrap the literacy hour? It appears so. Do they want schools not to teach a daily maths lesson? Apparently. What would they do to help schools to deal

  255
  with disruptive pupils? Let them get on with it. How would they encourage the best people to come into the teaching profession? Apparently, by talking down the profession in the way in which they have this evening.
  Not only does the Conservative party not take any responsibility for developing policy now. It does not take responsibility even for what happened when they were in government. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) recently addressed the NUT. She was jeered by delegates—fair enough, that happens to the best of us. However, her response to the jeering was to say:
  I can hear your scepticism, but I was not here last time.
  That may be the case, but many of us were here during the Tory years as teachers and as parents. We know what it was like to have national curriculum folders dumped on us with no consultation, to have our youngest children starting their school career in large classes, to spend our time shifting buckets around to catch drips from ceilings that there was no money to mend, and to have four out of 10 primary children leaving school without the basic reading skills to progress. The induction year for new teachers had been scrapped and there was no support for head teacher training. The hon. Lady may wash her hands of those realities, but they are what the Government have started to address.
  Our key themes are better pay, more training for leadership, more support for schools and teachers and a commitment to improve training for teachers throughout their career. We are already delivering on them.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 313.
  Question accordingly negatived
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 158.

  Division No. 197]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Davidson, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Denham, John

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dobbin, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Austin, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Barnes, Harry

  Doran, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Drew, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Edwards, Huw

  Benton, Joe

  Efford, Clive

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Best, Harold

  Ennis, Jeff

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blackman, Liz

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Flint, Caroline

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foulkes, George

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Browne, Desmond

  Galloway, George

  Burden, Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Cann, Jamie

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Casale, Roger

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Healey, John

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Heppell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corston, Jean

  Hill, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Crausby, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hope, Phil

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  260

  Hutton, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Illsley, Eric

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Norris, Dan

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pendry, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pond, Chris

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pope, Greg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kidney, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rapson, Syd

  Laxton, Bob

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lepper, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lock, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCabe, Steve

  Roy, Frank

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ruane, Chris

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McDonnell, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McFall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McNulty, Tony

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Meale, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stringer, Graham

  Morley, Elliot

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

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

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mudie, George

  Timms, Stephen

  261

  Todd, Mark

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Truswell, Paul

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wills, Michael

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wood, Mike

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Worthington, Tony

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wray, James

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watts, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  White, Brian

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Allan, Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Amess, David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Evans, Nigel

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Faber, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ballard, Jackie

  Fallon, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Flight, Howard

  Bercow, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fraser, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gibb, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Gidley, Ms Sandra

  Brake, Tom

  Gill, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Breed, Colin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Green, Damian

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, John

  Burnett, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Burstow, Paul

  Hammond, Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Harvey, Nick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hayes, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clappison, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Keetch, Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Collins, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cran, James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  262

  Lansley, Andrew

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Leigh, Edward

  Ruffley, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Livsey, Richard

  Sanders, Adrian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Loughton, Tim

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Luff, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

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

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Maginnis, Ken

  Swayne, Desmond

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Syms, Robert

  Malin, Humfrey

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maples, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Townend, John

  Moore, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Norman, Archie

  Tyler, Paul

  Oaten, Mark

  Walter, Robert

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Öpik, Lembit

  Webb, Steve

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Paice, James

  Willis, Phil

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Paterson, Owen

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Pickles, Eric

  Yeo, Tim

  Randall, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rendel, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Laurence

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the substantial steps taken by the Government to improve teaching and the rewards for teaching, which include the introduction of a General Teaching Council, the development of better pay for good teaching, the introduction of training salaries to improve teacher recruitment, new measures to improve the training of headteachers, the Better Regulation Task Force Report on 'Red Tape Affecting Headteachers', administrative support for schools, more classroom assistants, lower infant and junior class sizes, reform of induction and teacher training, and significant improvements in funding for school budgets and school modernisation; and notes that these measures have already reversed a legacy of budget cuts, rising class sizes and inadequate training inherited from the previous administration.

  Northern Ireland (Flags)
  10.26 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move,
  That the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.
  I am sure that the House will appreciate, in the current circumstances, the urgency for dealing with this issue this evening without, I am afraid, the usual courtesies of consultation, for which I apologise.
  It does not need me to point out that in Northern Ireland symbols matter a lot, and this is something that we need to address. Symbols represent the different identities and different traditions of those who live in this part of the United Kingdom and, like other symbols, flags have historically been a source of conflict that has driven people apart. My reason for bringing this draft order before the House tonight is not to perpetuate such symbolic clashes, but to try and ensure that they do not become a permanent source of division in the future.
  Northern Ireland, in my view, has never had a better chance than now to leave behind it the divisions of the past. In under a week, I hope that, following the IRA's historic statement, the restored institutions will get down once again to the business of governing in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that these institutions—politics itself—have no hope of functioning smoothly and effectively until old constitutional sores and provocations are put to one side.
  That was the thinking behind the Good Friday agreement, a framework in which both Unionists and nationalists can participate together in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. They can do so while remaining every inch a Unionist, nationalist or, indeed, republican, as they wish, as long as they do so by peaceful and democratic means. This is the foundation of the new dispensation being created in Northern Ireland.
  Without in any way surrendering their fundamental political beliefs, both main traditions now agree on the fundamental constitutional issue. They agree that it should be settled exclusively on the basis of consent, with the will of the people, freely expressed, prevailing over guns, bullying and intimidation. In particular, the participants in the agreement explicitly accept:
  the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland…is to maintain the Union and accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish…
  Let me say in parenthesis that I think that it is extraordinary that such an agreement, which enshrines the principle of consent, should be misrepresented by some people as putting Northern Ireland on a motorway out of the United Kingdom. That is emphatically not the case. All the Good Friday agreement does is put the people of Northern Ireland in the driving seat. They, and only they, decide and will decide where Northern Ireland goes. It cannot go anywhere, whether by motorway, highway or byway, without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and with this Government it will not.
  As far as Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are concerned, let me make this clear: that means that the Union flag continues to fly over our buildings in Northern Ireland on the basis applied
  264
  elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The principle of consent was a cornerstone of the Good Friday agreement. As such, it must receive more than lip service, as too must another cornerstone—the principle of equality: that both traditions are equally valid and that there must be
  just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Secretary of State guarantee the House tonight that, were it to give him the powers that he seeks in the order, only the Union flag will fly over government buildings in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Mandelson: Yes.
  On this basis, let me address directly a concern which I know is sincerely held by some Unionists: that the rights of equality for the minority in Northern Ireland are currently in danger of cutting across the principle of consent enjoyed by the majority, that the agreement has led to a climate in which, bit by bit, the last vestiges of Britishness are being dismantled, and that the argument about flags is symptomatic of a deeper malaise.
  I understand that analysis and the fears from which it springs, but I completely reject it. There may be a simplistic view among some nationalists—not, I hasten to say, my colleague the Irish Foreign Minister, who is too wise for such an approach—that the display of emblems of Britishness is somehow incompatible with the Good Friday agreement. That is emphatically not the Government's view. As long as, consistent with the Good Friday agreement, symbols and emblems are used sensitively and in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division, I see no difficulty in their use, and my actions will be based on that view.
  Mr. Peter Robinson rose—
  Mr. Mandelson: I will give way in a moment.
  The fact is that the Good Friday agreement is no more about decommissioning Britishness than it is about suppressing Irishness. In a society such as Northern Ireland's, either approach would be wrong in principle and bound only to lead to the alienation of a significant section of the population. As I have said before, we will have failed if at the end of the day, with all that we are trying to do and all the progress that I believe we are making, we have simply replaced an alienated nationalist tradition with an alienated Unionist one.
  Nor do I believe that, as the agreement is worked out, we will see any significant diminution in the sense of Britishness in Northern Ireland. Speaking for myself, I welcome that. The Union has great strengths and brings benefits to all those living in its constituent parts. But there is—and I take this as an example of where our actions are resisting any diminution of Britishness—no recommendation in the criminal justice review to drop the title "royal" in the courts of justice or the royal arms from the outside of courtrooms. I hope and believe that the royal family's close connection with and interest in Northern Ireland will be not only be sustained, but enhanced. Britishness, therefore, far from being on its way out, will remain while there is a population wishing to express it.

  265
  Against that background, let me turn to the issue of flags, unless the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) wishes to intervene at this stage.
  Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. My intervention is on that issue.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the provisions of the order and his remarks to the House would apply to Parliament Buildings, Stormont?
  Mr. Mandelson: I have considered that matter. In the circumstances, I believe that it would be better to leave the arrangements for Parliament buildings—which have worked quite satisfactorily to date—to the Members of that Assembly. If the matter has to be reviewed, then reviewed it will be, but the hon. Gentleman will accept that the problem has been not at Parliament buildings, but elsewhere.
  It would be surprising indeed if all evidence of the past clashes and conflicts in Northern Ireland disappeared overnight. Of course, it will not do so. As I have said, the flying of flags has been a battleground in the past, and proved something of the same during the first weeks of the devolved Executive. Under direct rule, the position was that the Union flag was flown from all Government buildings on certain set days. Those included most of the days on which the Union flag was flown from Government buildings elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, also included were some extra days specific only to Northern Ireland; for example, St. Patrick's day and 12 July.
  The basis of flag flying is, formally, a royal command by Her Majesty issued on the royal prerogative. There is no other basis in law. Under devolution, those powers of the royal prerogative were transferred, in respect of devolved matters, to the individual Northern Ireland Ministers and Departments. During the 10 weeks of devolution, there was—broadly—a common position among the Northern Ireland Ministers on how they should exercise their prerogative powers in relation to the Union flag within their respective Departments.
  The result was that most Departments flew the Union flag from all their buildings on all the specified days. However, two Departments, under the instructions of their Ministers, did not fly the Union flag at all. Let me make it clear: I believe that this difficult—though symbolic—issue would be best resolved by the Executive Committee itself and I believe that the best way of doing so is by accommodation on the principles of the Good Friday agreement and the principle of respect for both identities.
  I believe that practice in Northern Ireland should reflect practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I think that the Secretary of State has half answered the question that I was about to put. When one reads the Good Friday agreement—especially the first pages of the text—is it not clear that there can be only one answer, under the agreement, as to what flag should be flown over Government buildings? Therefore, the actions of certain members of the Executive in not doing so flew completely in the face of the text and the spirit of the agreement.
  Mr. Mandelson: Arguably, yes. That is why I am taking this action this evening. It is not for me to rehearse
  266
  arguments that are better put by those who believe in them—notably Sinn Fein Ministers and members of the Executive. The argument that they would put to the hon. Gentleman, if they were here, is that the Good Friday agreement also enshrines respect for the identities, the ethos and the traditions of all in the community; and that they should not be forced to accept and to fly the flag—the chief emblem or symbol—of somebody else's tradition.
  None the less—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Mandelson: If hon. Members do not mind, I should like to make a little progress.
  Notwithstanding the argument that those Ministers and members of the Executive would put to hon. Members if they were here, the Union flag remains the flag of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a constituent part and, while that is the wish of the majority of its people, the flag will continue to fly over Northern Ireland.
  As I said, this matter is best resolved by the Executive. If it were possible to reach a collective view and to move by consensus, I should welcome that. An initial attempt was made during the early stages of the Executive.
  However, I do not want to see the Executive consumed for weeks and months by shadow boxing over an essentially symbolic issue. I want to see the Executive build up a sense of common collective purpose and approach to the business of governing Northern Ireland in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
  Therefore, the draft order provides me with a reserve power to set regulations on flag flying from Government buildings. I shall use this reserve power only if it becomes clear that the Executive is unable to agree a way forward and the issue is becoming a palpable source of division among its members.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On parity of esteem, does the Secretary of State believe, in this instance, what the negotiator of IRA-Sinn Fein told the people of Northern Ireland last night on television? He said that the two flags must fly and that that was the only way that there could be parity of esteem. He said that the tricolour must fly beside the Union flag on these buildings.
  Mr. Mandelson: The negotiator said that as an act of generosity, but it is not a view that I accept and it is not my definition of parity of esteem.
  Moreover, if I believe that it is best to exercise the reserve power, I shall exercise it in consultation with the Assembly and the Executive. The draft order requires me to consult the Assembly on any regulations that I may be minded to make, and to take into account any views it reports to me on those regulations. It also requires me to have regard to the provisions of the Good Friday agreement and it requires any regulations to be approved in both Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: If Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and if, as the Secretary of State suggests, the same regulations on flying the flag as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom should properly apply in Northern Ireland, why cannot the matter be solved by simply stating that instead of through the process of consultation?
  Mr. Mandelson: The hon. and learned Gentleman will acknowledge and accept that, at the moment, this is a devolved matter. I do not want to go simply crashing into the situation; I want to show respect for the principles of devolution that the House has previously debated and agreed. All that I am doing at this stage is asking the House to agree a draft order that will enable me to bring forward regulations to regulate these matters if local parties, local politicians and Ministers are simply unable to reach agreement among themselves on the best way forward. That would surely be the preferable and the ideal course for them to take. However, as I say, if they cannot do that, I do not want to sit back powerless, watching a not unimportant but ultimately symbolic issue continuing to divide the Executive and pulling apart what might otherwise be a potentially consensual approach on other matters in the Assembly. Bigger and greater matters, other than the flying of the Union flag, are of direct relevance to the people of Northern Ireland and they are there for the Executive and Assembly to trouble themselves with.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept the Secretary of State's point that there are other important issues, but surely this is the constitutional issue of the flag of the nation flying throughout the nation and throughout the kingdom wherever that may be. It is not a devolved issue for Northern Ireland, but one that affects the kingdom as a whole.
  Mr. Mandelson: At the moment—and until the House agrees the draft order—it is a devolved matter.
  Rev. Martin Smyth indicated dissent.
  Mr. Mandelson: It is a devolved matter and it also has very great constitutional implications not just for Northern Ireland, but—I readily accept—for the United Kingdom as whole. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the House should address itself in the way that it is doing to the draft order that I am asking it to agree.
  Mr. Michael Howard: If the Secretary of State exercised his powers in the order only in accordance with the unequivocal undertakings that he has given to the House—for example, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—this evening, would it not follow that the consultation exercise, which is provided for in the order, would be a sham? Indeed, does it not mean that the Secretary of State would be rendering himself vulnerable to judicial review? [Interruption.] I should be very happy to give him the benefit of my experience.
  Would not it be far better to avoid any such difficulties and for the Secretary of State to act on the suggestion that was just made to him? He should give effect to those unequivocal undertakings in this order and provide that in the event that the Executive Committee is unable to reach
  268
  agreement, the Union flag will fly on Government buildings in Northern Ireland as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Mandelson: Obviously, I defer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's experience of judicial review, which is superior to mine. [HON. MEMBERS: "So far."] Indeed, so far. Every day that I have woken up in Northern Ireland, I have been exposed to the perils of judicial review. The situation is not quite as simple as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says because the prescribed days for flying the national flag can change from year to year.
  There is another flag that some might want to fly in Northern Ireland; indeed, it was recently flown from the Parliament buildings. I do not want to provoke the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I refer to the flag of the European Union. The flying of all sorts of flags has to be regulated.
  I hope that a common-sense arrangement, respecting the principles of the Good Friday agreement—and I mean all the principles—can be arrived at.
  Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mandelson: No. Many other hon. Members want to participate.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.
  Mr. Mandelson: As I was saying before I was nearly so rudely interrupted, I think that it is possible—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Only one Member can address the House at a time. The Secretary of State is trying to make a speech.
  Mr. Mandelson: With reasonable good will on the part of all members of the Executive—
  Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mandelson: No, I have made it absolutely clear that I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is not giving way. I can hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, so the hon. Gentleman should also be able to hear him.
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should sit down while I am addressing the House. I hope that he is not going to make a bogus point of order because he has been unable to intervene.
  Mr. Cash: My point of order is simple, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may say so, the Secretary of State is misleading the House with respect to an important point about the Belfast—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to withdraw that statement. The Secretary of State is not misleading the House. No Member is misleading the House.
  Mr. Cash: I am perfectly prepared to say that the Secretary of State has misinterpreted the Belfast agreement—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman is withdrawing his statement?
  Mr. Cash: I regret to say that I will withdraw the original statement—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw his statement that the Secretary of State is misleading the House. Will he do so?
  Mr. Cash: I will withdraw the statement, but I also—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the statement?
  Mr. Cash: Yes, I have said so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Well, there is no point of order. I call the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Mandelson: As I was saying, I hope that with a reasonable amount of good will on the part of all members of the Executive this matter can be properly resolved. Rather than see the enthusiasm, vision and high hopes with which many people greet the prospect of a return of devolved power to Northern Ireland frittered away on endless symbolic disputes such as this, I am prepared to try to settle this potentially divisive issue myself. It is on that basis that I commend the draft order to the House.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: I accept the Secretary of State's apology and explanation of why he could not give the House, myself and other spokesmen more notice of the draft order. We are in a fast-moving situation and it was right and proper that, at short notice, the draft order was brought before the House.
  As far as the order goes—although I do not think that it goes far enough—it is broadly helpful. I think that hon. Members would agree, in reflecting on legislation that we passed a year ago, that we were unwise to have transferred to the Executive the decision on flags flying from public buildings. That view is now clearly shared by the Secretary of State. The order, to all intents and purposes, but not as specifically as we would like, will ensure that the decision is a reserved matter.
  I shall briefly describe the Opposition's position; it is very straightforward and simple. We are the first to acknowledge readily, happily and warmly that Northern Ireland is very much part of the United Kingdom. It is absolutely clear that, by way of consent, the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. While that consent is forthcoming, which I hope will be for a very long time, it must be right and proper that Northern Ireland is treated exactly the same as the rest of the United Kingdom—no better, no worse—and that on the matter of flying flags on public buildings, it should be treated identically to other parts of the United Kingdom. That is my understanding of what
  270
  the Secretary of State said, particularly in his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
  I endorse the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) that, given that the Secretary of State is so clear and so much in agreement with us, we cannot quite see the point of the order not being more specific and clear—that the matter is reserved and the Secretary of State rightly believes that, as Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, it should be treated identically to the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that there are wider implications? We also have devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales. Is he agreeing with his hon. Friends on the Back Benches, who seem to imply that any time such a body disagrees about something, we in London should simply step in and say that we will take over? Surely there is a principle that devolution must be allowed to work, and therefore the terms of the order make more sense than his hon. Friends have suggested.
  Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she neatly takes me to my next point.
  Huge offence was caused because two Ministers in the Executive, both representing Sinn Fein—the Minister for Education and the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety—refused to fly the Union flag on days when it was flown elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and instead wished to fly the tricolour. That has been very harmful to the process that the hon. Lady and I support. Therefore, it must be right and proper that the matter is reserved. As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out just a moment ago, that means that the Executive can get on with more relevant matters and he can make the final decision.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: The Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that only the Union flag will fly, but I am not entirely clear whether Sinn Fein Ministers will still be able to refuse to fly any flag. Is that right?
  Mr. MacKay: Subject to the Secretary of State putting me right, my understanding of the order is that if agreement cannot be reached within the Executive, he will take the decision. He has made clear to our right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst what his decision will be. Those Ministers will not be entitled to overrule the Secretary of State's decision in respect of their public buildings. I do not see the Secretary of State rising to tell me that I have misinterpreted the order—in fact, I think that he is now vaguely acknowledging that I am correct. That is as close to confirmation as I am likely to obtain from him, and I am grateful for that apparently positive movement. I think that we can take my answer as accurate.
  I have a word or two to say to any Members of Parliament who are thinking of opposing the order. If they do so and they win, the status quo will remain. It is distinctly possible—even probable—that a new Executive

  271
  will soon be formed, and the rules state that that Executive must contain two Sinn Fein Ministers. Therefore, the result of rejecting the order will be a return to the situation in which Sinn Fein Ministers provocatively fly the tricolour instead of the Union flag. I cannot believe that that is what those hon. Members want.
  We support the order, but we regret that the Secretary of State has not gone further and put in the order his clear and unambiguous response to questions asked today. He has clearly and categorically said that, as and when he takes over responsibility for the matter, which I fear that he will inevitably have to do—deep down, he knows that the Executive will not agree on the flags issue, which was the subject of fundamental disagreement between Ministers of different parties within the Executive—the Union flag will fly on public buildings on appropriate days, exactly as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I still require clarification. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Secretary of State would in any circumstances permit the tricolour and the Union jack to be flown side by side on a public building? I hope that the answer is no. Through my right hon. Friend, I say to the Secretary of State that the issue is not merely symbolic: as one Member said, it is constitutional, and that is more than symbolic.
  Mr. MacKay: It is not for me to stand at the Dispatch Box and translate the Secretary of State's words, but my understanding of his remarks is that they were absolutely clear and unequivocal—to echo my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. If and when—in my view, when—the matter becomes one for the right hon. Gentleman's decision, the Union flag and the Union flag alone will fly from public buildings, exactly as it does in Macclesfield and elsewhere. I think that the Secretary of State is now nodding, so we have an absolute, categoric answer.
  To conclude, we support the order, even though we regret that it is not more straightforward. None the less, we are pleased that, in replying to various interventions, the Secretary of State has, from the Dispatch Box and from a sedentary position, made clear what the position will be when he is in charge of flags. For that, we are grateful.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: First, I have a small gripe about the process of communication. I understand the importance of moving quickly to keep pace with events and circumstances that change hourly, if not minute by minute. However, it has been difficult to obtain information: at one point, I was given the impression that officials had no knowledge whatever of what would happen tonight, even though it had been announced to the press and, through the Government Whips Office, to other parties that the order would be debated tonight. I understand that the situation is fast moving, but the "I can neither confirm nor deny" approach was not 100 per cent. helpful. Perhaps we can tighten up communication between the parties on such matters.
  My main point relates to how issues of devolution and flags have been handled elsewhere. In February, there was a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly about the
  272
  flying of flags. An Alliance party staff member was asked to research the attitude adopted to flags by the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. He telephoned the Scottish Parliament first and was passed around several extensions before he found anyone who could tell him which flags, if any, were flown from the building. Upon calling the Welsh Assembly, he was greeted by a long silence from a Liberal Democrat researcher, who went to look out of the window and was astounded to find not only the Welsh flag and the Union jack, but the European flag flying over Cardiff. Interestingly enough, that did not cause a walk-out or any suspension of the process of the Welsh Assembly—[Interruption.]—although I know that some members of the Opposition think that it should.
  Not surprisingly, flags have taken on profound symbolism in Northern Ireland, as the debate suggests. In that context, it makes sense to put the order through Parliament. The Secretary of State has been clear about the implications. However, I should like to think that what is needed is a not a change of flags, but a change of attitude. That is the ultimate goal of the process.
  The challenge is not to attempt to eliminate the difference and the strongly held national identities in Northern Ireland. Instead, we should try to eliminate the fear of the difference and start to value that difference. Once we do that, I have no doubt that the flags issue will fade away into the ether, and more importantly, we will make significant progress in valuing the difference between the communities and getting on with the process of allowing Northern Ireland to govern itself.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: For many years, it was traditional for members of our party to say on occasions such as this that it was regrettable that legislation was being enacted for Northern Ireland by this abbreviated procedure, instead of being enacted properly on the Floor of the House. Were it being enacted properly on the Floor of the House through a normal Bill, it would be possible for the Bill to be comprehensive and apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, and thus to anticipate problems that might arise elsewhere. The Government should be aware that problems of a similar nature might well arise elsewhere.
  It is necessary that the legislation goes through, and goes through quickly, because it is necessary that the issue be settled. Unfortunately, however, I believe that the form of the order will not settle the issue and may contain the seeds of future trouble.
  The legislation would not be necessary if there were any proper law on the existence of the United Kingdom's national flag. The existence of the flag and the occasions on which it is flown are matters of custom, practice and administrative procedures, not of law. That was not a weakness in the past. It is part of the way in which we are accustomed to doing things, but it has caused a weakness on this occasion. Because of the difficulties that have arisen, it is necessary to put the flying of the flag on a legal basis.
  That would not be necessary had nationalists in Northern Ireland observed the agreement. As was pointed out to the Secretary of State in an excellent intervention, the agreement is clear on the matter. It is clear about Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom. In the agreement, nationalists recognised the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom.

  273
  There is only one sovereignty and only one national flag, and the issue should not have arisen. It has arisen because some nationalists do not, in practice, operate the agreement and are failing to implement it. Obviously, Sinn Fein Ministers come into that category, but we wonder whether some other nationalists are in that category as well.
  The Secretary of State was extremely kind to the Irish Foreign Minister in his reference to him. However, comments have been attributed to the Irish Foreign Minister, and not repudiated by him, in which he has asserted that the institutions in Northern Ireland should have no element of Britishness about them. That assertion is utterly unacceptable, quite wrong and completely contrary to the agreement. I hope that it is clearly squashed by the Government's action tonight. That mistaken view should not be sustained.
  I fear that the legislation will not settle the matter that should have been settled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) pointed out, it should not have been a devolved matter at all. The existence of the national flag is not a regional matter. The existence and the treatment of the national flag should not come under the purview of a devolved regional administration; it should have been reserved as a constitutional matter. The draftsmen of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 slipped up. The order should have repaired that omission simply by treating the national flag as a reserved matter.
  The order contains weaknesses. Making the order a matter of apparent discretion for a Secretary of State from time to time is a mistake. I accept that successive Secretaries of State from 1972 to now have, as a matter of administrative practice, issued a list of official flag days each year. However, the order will be matter of dispute in future. It would therefore have been better to place official flag days on a statutory basis and thus avoid future dispute.
  A further mistake by the Secretary of State is to refer the matter to the Assembly. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for doing that, but the whole point of the constitutional provisions in the agreement was to settle such issues. Why is he pushing a constitutional issue on to the Assembly? How will that facilitate smooth working together? Putting a constitutional issue back on to the Assembly will be divisive; it will create division on constitutional lines. Does the Secretary of State want that? I am sure that his consultation procedure was well intentioned, but the order will be divisive.
  The order will also be unfair to moderate nationalists. We know the position that extreme nationalists will adopt; we know what Sinn Fein will do. The order will make life difficult for moderate nationalists, including those in the Social Democratic and Labour party. Does the Secretary of State want that? The Unionists' position, and that of Sinn Fein will be clear. The only people who will be put in a spot by the Secretary of State's consulting the Assembly are members of the SDLP. From their practice in the past, I am sorry to say that they will probably feel that they have to be more nationalist and republican than the republicans. It is unwise to push them into that position when some of them do not want to be there.
  274
  There is an interesting contrast, which the Secretary of State mentioned, between the order and chapter 8, paragraph 61, of the criminal justice review. It states:
  We considered the removal of symbols but this could be misinterpreted as inconsistent with Northern Ireland's constitutional position.
  That is right. The Secretary of State rightly said that the criminal justice review provides for the retention of the word "royal" on the royal courts of justice, its badge and the flag. It is right to do that. However, what did the Patten commission do with policing? It might remove the word "royal" and it recommended the removal of the badge and the flag.
  The Secretary of State has rightly held up the criminal justice review as an example of good practice. He is right to do that. We urge him to be consistent and to extend its principles—which he upholds in the order with regard to Government buildings—to policing. Why except police stations? They should be treated in the same way as courts and Government buildings.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: It is right that paragraph 4 (4) of the statutory instrument sets it in the context of the Belfast agreement. It is important to remember that the Good Friday agreement enjoyed the overwhelming support of people north and south of the border and the majority of both communities. Despite the uncertainties and vicissitudes of recent months, the agreement continues to enjoy majority support.
  For some people, flags are merely coloured pieces of cloth. However, for others, they are potent symbols. I am aware of that because I have recently returned from North America. It is definitely the case in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) suggested. It would also be fair to say that, in Northern Ireland, if flags are a potent symbol, symbols are perhaps more potent than in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Flags can be potent symbols in a positive fashion. They are symbols of community identity and sources of pride and celebration. However, they can undoubtedly cause offence and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, they can cause conflict.
  In the right context, the Union flag, as my right hon. Friend correctly referred to it, or the green, white and orange tricolour can inspire bonhomie and a spirit of community. However, in the wrong context in Northern Ireland, they can undoubtedly inflame aggression. Not for nothing have flags been thought of as battle standards or battle honours, but we must consider them in the context of peace. We are working towards peace in Northern Ireland, albeit an imperfect one. The guns are mostly silent and the number of murders and bomb outrages has reduced.
  To respond to a remark made by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) only this weekend, let me say that we are not talking about preventing the planting of bombs only in London. The overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the House want an end to bomb outrages and murders throughout the United Kingdom. That is what we are working for. Although there is not as much violence and thuggery as there once was, we want them to end and we recognise that punishment beatings and knee-cappings are unacceptable. No Member of the

  275
  House accepts that such actions can be called community policing. They should be known as what they are—vicious, fascist gangsterism. They must end. Arms inspections are not in themselves sufficient; ultimately, they must lead to the total disuse and decommissioning of arms. That is the context in which we should consider an accommodation over flags.
  Last week, I was in Canada with other members of my Select Committee, which is why I am wearing a Union jack and maple leaf badge on my lapel. I celebrated my birthday exactly a week ago and attended a birthday party at which the Union flag flew next to the green, white and orange tricolour. At the risk of antagonising the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) even more than did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in a place of superiority over all was a blue flag with gold stars. I happen to share a birthday with the European Union, which was celebrating its 50th. I draw a veil of silence over which birthday I was celebrating.
  I hope that a time may yet come when the Union flag can fly alongside the Irish tricolour or the flag of any other EU member—in Northern Ireland as easily as anywhere else—without inflaming bitterness and unhappiness. I take the points made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) but, until that time, it is perfectly sensible for the Assembly to seek accommodations on such matters in the first instance and it is totally right for my right hon. Friend to have the capacity to mediate where that cannot be achieved.
  Tragically, many lives have been lost in Northern Ireland. Flags can be symbols of honour for lives lost, and that is the basis of battle honours, but there is a far better memorial for those who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland: pursuing the dangerous process of building peace—however difficult, tawdry and imperfect that may be—and ending the carnage and the needless sacrifice of innocent lives. I hope that the order can contribute to that purpose.
  11.14 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I support what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) said about the fascist thugs who continue to perpetrate outrages in Northern Ireland, but I say to him that I am glad that every person who watched a television programme on Sunday last saw a former member of the Executive, Mr. McGuinness, make it clear that he would not appeal to people who know those who are guilty of the crime of Omagh to give their information to the police. When a so-called Minister in a so-called democratic Government in this United Kingdom says in public that he would not encourage people who knew about such a diabolical outrage and such diabolical terrorism to go to the police, we realise what is at the heart of these divisions. They are not minor divisions; they are very major divisions.
  The IRA made a statement, part of which has been given very little publicity, in which it forthrightly told us what it saw as the root causes of the troubles in Northern Ireland. First, there was the claim of this United Kingdom Government to hold sway in part of Ireland. Secondly, there was the partitioning of Ireland. Thirdly, there was the right of self-determination.
  276
  We have been told from the Dispatch Box that all who took up the agreement believed that the right of self-determination was vested in the people of Northern Ireland alone—that it was for them alone to decide their destiny. But here we have the IRA saying that that is not so: that one of the root causes that must be eliminated is anyone saying that Ireland as a whole has not the right to decide the destiny of the whole island, and therefore the destiny of the people of Northern Ireland.
  The last point consisted of the IRA's wrongful accusation about the way in which republicans are treated under the law in Northern Ireland. Well, Northern Ireland people have not been governed in Northern Ireland for a very long time, so that is a charge against successive British Governments.
  Those, then, are the root causes. The IRA went on to express its belief that, if what it was now saying was accepted, it would have a structure under which it could deliver to the people the removal of all those root causes.
  Nothing will persuade the majority of people in Northern Ireland that they should join the Irish Republic. Nothing will persuade them that that partition will not remain; nothing will persuade them that they should give up their right of self-determination, and hand it over to a united Ireland; nothing will convince them that everything that is done in Northern Ireland is a strike against nationalist or republican people. Therefore, the structure that we are asked to accept by the Government is a structure to destroy the very things that the Government say will stay in place.
  One of the questions put to the Secretary of State was the right question: why have the order at all? We are not talking about ordinary buildings, or about meeting-places where flags are displayed within. Many of us who go to European institutions know that the tricolour is displayed there, because Ireland is a member state of the European Union. We are talking about public buildings in part of the territory of the United Kingdom Government. Surely such buildings are different.
  The other day, I asked the Prime Minister why the European flag was not flying on here, on the Houses of Parliament—here, in Westminster—for the same reason that it is allowed to fly in Scotland. I think the Secretary of State made a confession: it was through his wish that the flag was put up there. Well, the only laws that govern that are the laws of a commission, and that commission does not exist now. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was a member of it, and this matter was argued on it; but it could not agree.
  The Secretary of State tells us that he is not going to bother. Surely he should have been troubled about what was happening, because it was in the commission that governs the Parliament buildings that the arguments were put, and it could not reach a consensus. Why? Because IRA-Sinn Fein wanted the tricolour to fly at the same level as the flag of this United Kingdom.
  That is the real issue that the Secretary of State must apply himself to, but that is not in the order; it is left out. He told us that he did not think that he would enter into that realm, but surely that is the realm where the difference started.
  The difference was carried on, as has been said, when the two Sinn Fein members of the Government refused to fly the flag. I do not think that the Secretary of State has power under the order to command those two members to

  277
  put up a Union flag over their offices. Does he? Does he feel that, when he gets the order, if those two members say, "We will not fly the Union flag," he has the power to enforce the flying of the Union flag over those offices? He needs to come clean on that one and to tell the House whether that is what he thinks he has.
  The order is to do with flags. It is not to do with the Union flag. Why, if it is in defence of one flag, are other flags mentioned? He needs to come straight with us tonight and to tell us because he knows perfectly well that the IRA will not give in on the matter. He knows that both Ministers, if they are returned, will not fly the flag. He knows that he does not have the power to make them fly the flag. What, then, will he do? What about the Parliament building, which has five commissioners who have already been divided on the issue, with no decision being taken?
  Perhaps the Secretary of State would find out who commanded that the European flag should be put up in equality with the Union flag. I am a Member of the European Parliament, but I do not look at that Parliament as being equal with this House or with this kingdom. We are not part of a European super-state yet—please God, we never will be—but what I am saying is that that flag should not have been put up there. The Secretary of State is solely responsible at this moment for that flag, and he tells us that he had nothing to do with it. He needs to come clean.
  Those who have foolishly negotiated with terrorists are to blame for the mess that they are in. They cannot negotiate with IRA terrorists or other terrorists and think that they will get democratic attitudes from them because those terrorists are determined that they will not bow and kneel to democracy. They are dealing not with people who will be reasonable, but with people who will forward the republican agenda. By their actions, they have made real, true and just peace less likely than ever before. Negotiating with them gives them legitimacy. People think, "They have been in government. They must be democrats," but they are not. One of them, as I have mentioned, told the world, "If people knew who did the Omagh bombings, I would not be calling on them to go to the police." Where else would they go?
  Think of the atrocities of Omagh. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who has responsibility for the victims, is sitting on the Front Bench. He knows what happened in Omagh. It is dreadful to think that a Minister in Northern Ireland is saying publicly, "I will not call on anyone who has information to go to the police." How else can the people who did that awful act be brought to justice? Those are the issues that the House should be aware of.
  In bringing forward this legislation, the Government play entirely into the hands of terrorists. It is the legislation that they want. They are quite happy. When there is an issue about the flag, it will be made a major issue. As I have said, the Secretary of State will not be able to make them do anything. In Northern Ireland, we have flags flying everywhere by default around the area where the new markets have been formed. There is a tricolour on perhaps every pole. If one says anything about it to police, they say, "We cannot interfere with it. There would be trouble." What are we going to do? What is the Secretary of State going to do?
  Mr. Öpik: I have an Estonian background, and the Estonian flag means a lot to me, although I respect the
  278
  tradition and culture in which I have grown up—including the Union jack. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the position of those who support the case for flying the tricolour is nevertheless respectable? Regardless of whether he agrees with their position, surely, from a human perspective, he understands why they set such store in a flag.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am talking not about people flying flags—that is nothing to do with this—but about flags on public, Government buildings. Would the hon. Gentleman debate in the House if someone moved a motion that a foreign flag should fly on Government buildings here?
  Mr. Öpik: I would if it were an Estonian one.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I certainly look forward to seeing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency a motion in his name saying that that is what he wants. I know rightly that that is not what he wants, and that he would not even sponsor such a suggestion. We are dealing with Government property and with public buildings.
  Public buildings are defined as those in which the majority of people are civil servants. A majority of people in the Stormont building are not civil servants, but staff members of the Assembly. They are employed by the Assembly. The Assembly even considered a rule that they would not be civil servants, but direct employees of the Assembly. The particular order that we are debating is therefore not even clear in its definition of a public building.
  We are addressing the issue of what flag flies on a public building, and who commands that the flag should be flown there. If people want to put up tricolours and fly them, that is their business, but they should do it in keeping with the law. If one were to put up a Union jack in an area of Belfast where it was likely to cause a breach of the peace, it would be taken down by police. However, they are not so ready to take down tricolours in predominantly Unionist areas. Those are the facts of life.
  What can we expect from a Secretary of State who believes, as he does, that he has to refer to the agreement when he addresses this particular issue? The agreement talks about parity of esteem, but what is parity of esteem? Is it giving equal esteem to the two flags? If so, and if that is what the agreement meant, of course I can understand IRA men arguing that the flag should fly along with the Union jack. However, I do not think that any Member of this House believes that the Secretary of State, when he looks at the agreement and sees "parity of esteem," must immediately say, "Yes, both flags must fly." But that is how those men have interpreted the phrase's meaning, and that is what they will continually fight for.
  There will be fights. Does the Secretary of State really think that, because he is the final arbiter, there will be no rows over this matter? Does he really think that all will be lovely in the garden? It will not be, and the House should know that.
  The order will enable the Secretary of State, if he so desires, to prevent the flying of the national flag on Government buildings in Northern Ireland. He can say, "I am dealing with flags, and the Union flag is not to be flown here." However, he will have no right to direct a

  279
  Minister to refuse to fly the national flag. The Secretary of State has got to come to a decision about what he is going to do and what concessions he will make.
  It is all right for the Secretary of State to say today, "There are really no concessions to be made. There is no road to a united Ireland. There is nothing really happening. All in the garden is wonderful." All in the garden is not wonderful. We have today's debate in the House on what national flag should fly over Government buildings. The fact that we have to discuss the issue shows that all is not well. The issue was supposed to be settled, but the Executive refused to deal with it, because some people thought that there would be such a hullabaloo that the Executive could not keep together. I trust that the Secretary of State will state unequivocally that there is only one flag that should fly on public buildings and that is the flag of this nation.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Robert McCartney: It is evident from some of the speeches that have been made tonight that the true significance of the symbolism of the flag in Northern Ireland has been misinterpreted. In Surrey or Cardiff or many other places, the flag is taken for granted, just as constitutional rights are taken for granted. The citizens of those places know that their British citizenship will never be called into question. Only in those areas of the United Kingdom where there is a real fear and appreciation that British citizenship is conditional is an extra importance attached to symbols.
  The Secretary of State suggested that there had been a tremendous breakthrough, but it is abundantly clear from the opening paragraph of the Provisional IRA's statement that there will be no lasting peace in Northern Ireland until the basic causes of the conflict are removed. That means the end of partition, the end of the British claim to part of Ireland and self-determination on an all-Ireland basis. The first paragraph of that much-heralded breakthrough says specifically that there will be no lasting peace until partition and the British presence are removed.
  The next paragraph makes it clear what the Provisional IRA considers to be the true import of the Belfast agreement. If the agreement is fully implemented according to their Provisional IRA's specification, it will provide a political context in an enduring peace process that will give the potential for meeting all its objectives. If it does not provide that potential, there will be no lasting peace and the Provisional IRA will have recourse to its weapons, which it has not and will not put beyond use.
  What significance does that have for flags? The pro-Union people of Northern Ireland have seen their Britishness and their position in the United Kingdom as British citizens constantly eroded. The Royal Ulster Constabulary's name is to be changed. Why? Because the word "royal" is an indication of its Britishness. Even though the crown in the RUC's insignia is coupled with the harp and the shamrock, it will be removed because it is deemed unsuitable. It is a British symbol. The royal coat of arms has traditionally been set above a presiding judge. It will be removed because it is said that it in some way intimidates litigants or causes them to be unhappy. I have practised in Northern Ireland courts for 40 years and
  280
  represented all shades of opinion, all denominations and all political allegiances. I have never heard a single client make such a suggestion. Nevertheless, the insignia must be removed. The Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Cowen, has made it abundantly clear that all the symbols of Britishness in Northern Ireland must go. The pro-Union people have become increasingly conscious of the importance of their symbols, because they have become increasingly conscious of the substance that those symbols represent being removed.
  I am sorry to say that I view the order as a piece of political expediency. It was evident that the issue of the flag would be a major obstruction to the new seismic shift—the conditional offer from the IRA that if the process delivers Irish unity it will withhold the use of its arms, but will not dispense with their availability. The truth is that the issue of the flag, like the suspension that will be put on the determination of the RUC name, will be put on hold to lull Unionists into a false sense of security that something may yet happen that will preserve their symbols.
  Under the order, it is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide. On what principles will he decide? If the principle of consent means what it is declared to mean—that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom until such time as a majority decide otherwise—where is the problem? If we are part of the United Kingdom, we are entitled to fly the flag on public buildings on such occasions as is done in other parts of the United Kingdom. That being the case, what need is there for a devolved Assembly, which derives all its powers from the constitutional rights vested in this Parliament, to decide what is a constitutional issue? The Secretary of State need simply state that he has decided. There need be no consultation. He should say, "This is a constitutional matter. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I, in discharge of my constitutional obligation, declare that the flag of the United Kingdom, and that flag alone, will fly on the public buildings of Northern Ireland in the same way as it flies on the public buildings of Canterbury or Salford."
  There is no need for the order unless it is a political expedient, designed purely to put on the long finger what will be equally divisive. At great length, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) detailed all the mischiefs that will arise from this proposal. They were amplified by the contribution from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). Those mischiefs are real and they will occur, but they could be knocked out in one stroke by the Secretary of State acknowledging the real meaning of the principle of consent, which he alleges is in force, and acting upon it. The rest is mere surplusage, which will create more mischief than it was designed to remove.
  The Secretary of State should reflect on what has been said tonight because, as Dr. Faust found, there is a moment of reckoning, when the Mephistopheles of making this discretionary decision will return and will knock on the door of the Secretary of State—or, possibly, his successor—and say, "Now is the moment of truth, what are you going to do?" At that time, it may not matter for the people of Northern Ireland, but it will be another stain on the integrity of this House.
  11.40 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I shall be very brief. Of course, there can be no question but that it is the civic duty of any person with information about the Omagh bombings, or any other atrocity, to give that information to the proper authorities.
  Two principles are involved in the discussion of the order: we must stick to the terms of the Good Friday agreement, and we must stick to the principles of devolution. The order is sensible because it does not say that the Secretary of State will take over and make a decision that the Northern Ireland Assembly has been unable to make. Rather, the order makes it clear that the Secretary of State would regulate the flying of flags only after the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly had failed to reach agreement. The order therefore provides an opportunity for the Assembly to reach that agreement.
  I accept that that is a difficult proposition, but it is safe to predict that the Assembly will encounter many other difficult decisions. Its members will simply have to learn to work together and to find solutions with which at least the majority of the population—and preferably everyone—can manage to live. It is true that the SDLP will be put in a difficult position, but other elected members of the Assembly will be in difficult positions in other contexts as the months and years pass.
  Finally, if members of the Assembly cannot manage to work through a problem such as this, what hope is there that they will come to sensible decisions on bread-and-butter issues such as housing, health, education, and so on, which affect all the people of Northern Ireland? Let us hope for some common sense in this matter. We must realise that no one has it easy in the context of Northern Ireland.
  11.41 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I read this weasel order with great sadness. Paragraph (3)(1) states:
  The Secretary of State may make regulations regulating the flying of flags at government buildings.
  Leaving aside the fact that the word "buildings" has been misspelled, that paragraph makes one wonder to what body the word "government" refers. If the order is needed at all, to what "government" will it apply?
  The short answer is that there is complete ambivalence in the mind of the Secretary of State, who has no answer to the question for reasons that I shall explain to the House.
  Paragraph (4)(2) states:
  The Assembly shall, within such period as the Secretary of State may specify, report to the Secretary of State the views expressed in the Assembly.
  In other words, the Assembly will merely go through the motions of reporting. Paragraph (4)(3) provides that the Secretary of State "shall consider any report", but what does that mean? It means that he will think about a report. There is no need for him to make a decision, as he is merely under a requirement to "consider" any report.
  282
  The crucial point arises in paragraph (4)(4), which states:
  In exercising his powers under Article 3 the Secretary of State shall have regard to the Belfast Agreement.
  It was on the point of "shall have regard" that I intervened on the Secretary of State earlier.
  Some of us have some small experience of looking at the nuts and bolts of legislation. This order will have the force of law when the House agrees it tonight, as will no doubt happen, yet the Secretary of State will not have to comply with the Belfast agreement, only "have regard to" it.
  I assure the House that the Secretary of State, and those who drafted the order, know exactly what the words "have regard to" mean.
  This is extremely difficult territory. I do not accept that the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) or any others in the House do not realise exactly what the order involves. To put up a flag on a Government building, in terms of regulating the flying of flags on Government buildings, is not merely a symbolic act, but a declaration of the constitutional status of that Government building. According to one newspaper report today, the Union jack is apparently not flown on our embassy in France. It is an extraordinary state of affairs.
  I have no objection to people wanting to declare their allegiance, but I want to know what their allegiance is. The order gives no one any confidence about the continuation of the flag that represents the constitutional status of the Government of the United Kingdom, with respect to Government buildings, in this House.
  I say to the Secretary of State that I am extremely disappointed at the order, as I am with others in the House. It is a sell-out, and the Secretary of State knows that it is a sell-out. I have got used to sell-outs in relation to the United Kingdom with regard to a number of treaties that have been passed in the House. I need say no more, because everybody knows what I am talking about. [Laughter.]
  Just as other Governments are created, parallel to and absorbing the Government of the United Kingdom in respect of this Parliament, so, with respect to Northern Ireland, there is the gradual absorption—some may think imperceptible—which is none the less relentless, through the continuing diminution, reduction and assimilation, provided by orders of this kind, of the government of the people of Northern Ireland into another constitutional status.
  The Secretary of State knows this, because nobody with half a wit could fail to know it. It is very simple; it is going on. All the talk about the consent of the people of Northern Ireland will mean nothing when, bit by bit, gradually, by absorption, the government of the people of Northern Ireland is subsumed by orders of this kind.
  11.48 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) talked about difficult territory. The implementation of devolution puts

  283
  us into difficult territory, because it is new territory for many of us. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) talked about the erosion of the citizenship of pro-Union citizens in Northern Ireland. He was, if I may say so, using extreme language.
  We must remember that the principle of consent is the linchpin of the establishment of democracy and the Assembly in Northern Ireland. Whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman may say, that holds fast, just as it holds fast for Scotland. If a majority of the people of Scotland said that they wanted independence, this or any future Government would have to accept the will of the people. The principle of consent is very important. At least the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) emphasised the importance of the principle of consent in his opening remarks in what was, for him, quite a brief speech. We all share his revulsion for those who commit murderous acts of terrorism. We also share his revulsion for those who acquiesce in such acts of terrorism. It must be exceedingly difficult to sit down in a newly constituted Assembly with the apologists for such people—on both sides of the fence, incidentally. That cannot be easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is in every sense difficult territory. But at least these people are in a democratically elected Assembly.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) talked about custom and practice determining the question of the flying of the flag. Perhaps he will allow me to be facetious for a moment. The only time I see the two flags being waved almost side by side is at Ibrox or Parkhead when Celtic are playing Rangers. That is when we see it in Scotland.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that the flying of the flag of the state should be a reserved matter and that this is a deficiency in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I disagree wholeheartedly, because such a matter should be left to the devolved Assembly or legislature. I must admit that even though I took part in—
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Dr. Godman: I do not have time to give way.
  Although I took part in most of the debates on the Scotland Act 1998, I cannot remember whether the flying of the flag is a matter devolved to Scotland. [Interruption.] I learn that it is a devolved matter. I have visited the Scottish Parliament on a number of occasions, and I know one of its Members quite well, but I cannot remember whether I saw the saltire the last time I was there. We have people in Scotland who would like to see the saltire flying there, at the parliament of an independent Scotland.
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Dr. Godman: Time is against me. The hon. Gentleman will have to accept my apologies for not giving way.
  I wish to tell the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that I think tonight's debate is a precursor of a perhaps much livelier debate on a Bill that will come before us in the near future.
  284
  I also disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on police reform. If I had the power with regard to the design of a new police uniform, which is badly needed, I would change the colour from green to blue. Saying that may lose me a few votes among some of my Celtic supporters, but I believe that blue, not green, is the colour of a police uniform. However, I will not go down that road.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the order is needed. The Union is strong. The Northern Ireland people are, in every sense of the word, citizens of this United Kingdom, but I have to tell right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is a Union that is changing quite dramatically. The Union to which some of them pay such undying allegiance has largely disappeared, with devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  I disagree fundamentally with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. As my right hon. Friend said, the Union flag remains the flag of the United Kingdom, and that is based upon the principle of consent. That must be determined by the representatives in the Assembly. If they fail to come to an acceptable compromise, I can well understand why my right hon. Friend feels that he needs the power to step in and sort things out, but it is better that the MLAs determine this than that we do it here in London.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 8.

  Division No. 198]

  [11.55 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Corston, Jean

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cotter, Brian

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cranston, Ross

  Austin, John

  Crausby, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cummings, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Benton, Joe

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Best, Harold

  Dalyell, Tam

  Betts, Clive

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Day, Stephen

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobbin, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Burgon, Colin

  Dowd, Jim

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Cann, Jamie

  Efford, Clive

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Casale, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Chidgey, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clelland, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Gerrard, Neil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Colman, Tony

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Connarty, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  285

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grieve, Dominic

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNulty, Tony

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McWalter, Tony

  Healey, John

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Heppell, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Hinchliffe, David

  Maxton, John

  Hope, Phil

  Meale, Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hutton, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jamieson, David

  Norris, Dan

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kemp, Fraser

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kidney, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pike, Peter L

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Plaskitt, James

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pond, Chris

  Laxton, Bob

  Pope, Greg

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Purchase, Ken

  Luff, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rapson, Syd

  McCabe, Steve

  Rendel, David

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonnell, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McFall, John

  Roy, Frank

  286

  Ruane, Chris

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Timms, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Todd, Mark

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Touhig, Don

  Sawford, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Truswell, Paul

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watts, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  White, Brian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

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

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Stevenson, George

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wood, Mike

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Woolas, Phil

  Stringer, Graham

  Worthington, Tony

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wray, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Laurence

  Mr. William Cash and

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Rev. Martin Smyth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (Decommissioning)
  12.6 am
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.
  The order appoints 21 May 2001 as the date before which the amnesty period identified in a non-statutory decommissioning scheme must end. The amnesty period is the time during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme, thereby attracting both the amnesty and prohibitions on evidential use and forensic testing of decommissioned items provided by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
  Section 2 of the Act requires that a scheme must set out the amnesty period and that it must end before 27 February 1998—the first anniversary of the Act's passing—unless the Secretary of State, by order, appoints a later day. Three such orders have already been made. Under that made in February this year, the amnesty period will expire at midnight on 22 May.
  The purpose of this order is to extend that period until midnight on 20 May next year. When I last spoke to the House on this subject, three months ago, to seek approval for a further extension of the amnesty period, the political process had just experienced a significant setback. As a result of the lack of substantive progress on decommissioning and consequent decline in confidence in the institutions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had no option but to suspend the Assembly and Executive on 11 February.
  However, if a week is a long time in politics, three months is almost an eternity. Those three months have involved a great deal of hard work on the part of many people, not least the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), as a result of which the political climate is now vastly improved. The details of those improvements were brought to the attention of the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, and of course were touched upon in the previous debate.
  However, it is appropriate in the context of the order before us today to draw attention once again to the significance of the statement issued by the IRA last week. I believe that it holds out the very real prospect of progress on decommissioning. In its statement the IRA says that
  the IRA leadership will initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use.
  That is the first time that it has made such an undertaking. It is making its arms dumps available to outside inspectors. That is unprecedented, and it makes this order even more important.
  Without the extension, progress on decommissioning will simply not be possible, whatever commitments are made by the IRA or any other paramilitary organisation. To continue to fulfil our commitments under the agreement, it is essential that we extend, through the order, the period during which an amnesty is provided in respect of offences that might otherwise be committed in the course of decommissioning in accordance with a decommissioning scheme.
  288
  The confidence-building measure announced by the IRA last week is the first step in a process that will lead to arms being placed completely and verifiably beyond use. The IRA will re-engage with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to take that forward. To quote from the IRA's statement again, it said:
  We will resume contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and enter into further discussions with the commission on the basis of the IRA leadership's commitment to resolving the issue of arms.
  That is what the decommissioning Act required. Precisely how and when that should take place is a matter for the IICD.
  However, the British and Irish Governments asked the IICD, as set out in a joint statement of 5 May, to consider whether there are other possible decommissioning schemes that would offer it greater scope to discharge its basic mandate effectively. I should emphasise that that does not in any way affect the commission's basic mandate, including the definition of decommissioning under which it operates. In short, that is not a departure from the decommissioning Act. Indeed, it is wholly consistent and compatible with what was envisaged under the Act. I shall briefly expand on that point.
  The decommissioning Act, which was passed under the previous Government, set out four options for decommissioning arms and provided for more to be created if necessary. That Act also says, in effect, that arms can be destroyed or made permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable. If other schemes are proposed to or conceived by the IICD, the commission would be required to consult the two Governments. If the two Governments were satisfied with the proposals, they would introduce the necessary schemes in each of the two jurisdictions.
  The understanding is that the confidence-building measure will involve the securing of arms in separate dumps, which will be inspected by independent third parties: former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa, former general secretary of the African National Congress, who will of course report to the IICD. The Government are obviously most grateful to those distinguished figures for taking on that crucial task.
  The two inspectors visited London and Belfast yesterday for an initial round of discussions. In Belfast, they met the IICD to discuss how they will be taking forward their important roles. The Government have every confidence that they will carry out their task with the highest standard of professionalism, ability and integrity. Their visit indicates the speed with which we are moving forward. It also demonstrates the real nature of what has been offered by the IRA. We are no longer dealing in words or intentions, but in actions that represent real progress.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already informed the House, we believe that those developments are hugely significant. We are confident that we should be able to restore devolved government to Northern Ireland on a lasting basis. This Government are committed to both devolution and decommissioning. The order is essential to ensure the conditions to make decommissioning happen. I commend it to the House.
  12.13 am
  Mr. John M. Taylor: After the 23rd of this month, the amnesty for decommissioning will come to an end, and with it, of course, any facilitation of decommissioning or surrendering of weapons. We on the Opposition Benches have always taken a position supportive of the Belfast agreement in its entirety. Decommissioning remains an integral part of that agreement, although I am bound to say that in more recent exchanges I have heard the word "deactivation" spoken of with approval by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and the Secretary of State. However, whether it is decommissioning or deactivation, it is an integral part of the Belfast agreement and we must continue to stand in earnest hope of it. That being so, we must allow the proposed extended amnesty. The official Opposition will support the Minister.
  12.14 am
  Mr. John McFall: I am delighted to support the order. On 6 May, for the first time, we had a statement from the IRA, not from Sinn Fein; that fact was recognised by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) when he spoke in the House last week. For the first time, the IRA is speaking on its own behalf, and it has said that it will put its arms beyond use.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned the 1997 Act, introduced by the previous Government. We have been talking about decommissioning for five years or more, and that talk has bedevilled the making of progress. Whatever we call it, we all want to ensure that the arms are put beyond use and lives are saved. With good will from all sides, the process with which the order deals will ensure that happens. That is why it should be welcomed.
  I am especially pleased that the confidence-building measures include the recruitment of two distinguished international statesmen, Mr. Ahtisaari, the former president of Finland, and Cyril Ramaphosa. Those two individuals, especially the latter, have learned about conflict and conflict resolution in their own society. Conflict resolution worked with a conflict as deep and as widespread as the one in South Africa, and it will work in Northern Ireland.
  These events take place against the background of the operation of the ceasefires declared in 1994. To put it bluntly, that has meant that, since 1994, hundreds of lives in Northern Ireland have been saved. There are people walking about in Northern Ireland today who would not be doing so had the ceasefires not been in place—that is reality. Everyone in the House should be saying three cheers for ceasefires—three cheers for ensuring that more of our citizens live a decent life and have a prosperous future. That is the sort of society we want and everyone entering the negotiations should have that goal in mind.
  Whether or not we are of a cynical disposition, we should rejoice in the fact that lives have been saved. At the weekend, Martin McGuinness made a significant statement on the "Jonathan Dimbleby" programme. He said that, irrespective of whether or not the Executive was resumed, the arms verification process would continue. That is cause for optimism.
  Sure, we have travelled a long road and, sure, there are people who remain cynical, but, as one who served for a short time as a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, I
  290
  have witnessed the transformation of Northern Ireland's society. I know what the people of Northern Ireland want—they want the same things as the rest of the people in the United Kingdom want. They want good education facilities, good health services, and good prospects for themselves and for their families. That message was repeated daily in my ministerial briefings.
  I conclude by mentioning Senator George Mitchell. In his autobiography, he said that he hoped one day to return to Northern Ireland with his young son, to traverse the hills and glens and, on a rainy day, to go to the Visitors Gallery in Stormont and from there watch the politicians of Northern Ireland debate the real issues of Northern Ireland. Those issues are the economy, agriculture, transport and health. The order contributes to the realisation of his vision, and I wish it well.
  12.19 am
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: It is not surprising that we are keeping the flag flying on decommissioning at such a late hour. We always seem to discuss such issues after midnight. However, consideration of the order is a source of encouragement, not least because of the statements that have come directly from the IRA. That is so significant. We are finally getting statements from the people who are in a position to fulfil the commitment to decommissioning. The quotation that was read out by the Minister, stating:
  the IRA leadership will initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use
  is the crucial indication that we are moving forward from the deadlocks that we have experienced previously.
  We welcome the order and congratulate the two Governments, as well as the political parties in Northern Ireland, on the progress made, particularly in the past couple of weeks. I especially welcome the statement from the IRA about putting the arms beyond use, because it is becoming less conditional. That is a significant step forward. In some ways, the IRA is moving in directions in which it seemed reluctant to move in 1999. It seems to be a firm commitment.
  As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, Martin McGuinness's statement on the "Jonathan Dimbleby" programme gives the indication that regardless of what else happens and what blockages occur, the IRA is serious about playing its part in the peace process.
  It is good to welcome the former Secretary General of the African National Congress, Cyril Ramaphosa, and the former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, to Northern Ireland. It is significant that that process is independent and that they will report to the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.
  The order is a little more realistic than the one that was passed in February. Given the amount of armaments involved, it will take time to put them beyond use, and considerable time to inspect the arms dumps and determine that they are secure.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not recognise that only the possibility of three dumps being supervised is on offer? We do not know how much will be in them, but many more will be unsupervised and accessible to the other elements that have broken away from the IRA to carry on their terrible deeds.
  Mr.Öpik: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is correct. There is always a level of risk. One of the crucial

  291
  points made in the earlier debate is that the risk must be balanced. There is no such thing as certainty in politics. At some point, one must say that the risk is sufficiently low to justify some degree of good faith from us in the Chamber.
  All of us must make our call on whether the level of risk is sufficiently low to justify that faith. For me and for the Liberal Democrats and, I guess, for the Government, the risk is sufficiently small to justify our proceeding at this stage. History will prove us right or wrong. I believe that the greatest crime would be to impose barriers of uncertainty—barriers based on an assumption of failure. The Secretary of State has said many times that he does not plan for failure; he plans for success. This is one of the occasions when we must translate those words into action, which in my view means encouraging the process in Northern Ireland to go forward in the way that the order facilitates.
  Most importantly, we must reciprocate the strong and clear statement expressed directly by the IRA that it does not intend to be a barrier to the peace process henceforth. That is a matter not of principle, but of judgment. My judgment is that we probably have enough assurances to take the IRA seriously.
  On a related point, if only some dumps are inspected, the IRA and the splinter groups will have access to weapons. We have always known that. Even if every gun and bomb was decommissioned tomorrow, they could always buy more. Just as we all accepted that the previous order was based entirely on the importance of symbolism, which is strongly felt, it is incumbent on us to recognise that this order is based on symbolism as well, though obviously it relates to weapons rather than to flags.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are discussing more than symbolism? We are considering reality. Arms in a dump, however often it is inspected, can potentially be used at some stage. A weapon therefore continues to be held over democratic politics. Such dumps are, in some sense, a form of blackmail.
  Mr.Öpik: Perhaps in some sense, but that is a melodramatic interpretation of a rather stable situation. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to believe that the risk is too great to support the order, but I hope that most hon. Members are satisfied that the clear, unequivocal statements of the IRA are genuine and can be accepted.
  In a recent debate on Northern Ireland, I said that our discussions, comments and decisions in the House are not passive; they directly influence the process. If we take the right action here, the right outcome is more likely.
  The process is about arresting not those who hold guns, but violence. We have held that debate on previous occasions when we discussed the amnesty. We are beginning to progress from a rather narrow definition of decommissioning to a more balanced and reasonable definition of deactivation. It is not decommissioning that matters, but the fact that the guns and bombs are no longer used.
  It is important that people do not get killed for a cause in Northern Ireland. That can be achieved now; violence can be replaced by political debate. I believe that if we approve the order tonight, we effectively rubber-stamp another year of peace in the Province.
  12.27 am
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that decommissioning had been a troublesome word in the past five years. It is troublesome because decommissioning, or disarmament, has not been achieved, not because the need for it and its verification does not exist. I am pleased that the decommissioning commission, headed by General de Chastelain and his two colleagues, will be kept in place for a further year. That is important for several reasons.
  First, whether or not we want to make perverse political points, it is generally acknowledged that the IRA had no intention of rolling over, putting its feet and arms in the air and allowing us to tickle its belly. It intended to maintain its stance of "not a single rusty bullet" for as long as it was viable in its terms. However, over the years that we have worked to move Northern Ireland to more peaceful times and to create a democratic process, with which Northern Irish society can identify, there has been a general realisation—it has not totally gripped the IRA or loyalist paramilitaries—that illegal guns and organisations cannot exist side by side with true democracy and peace. That is the crux of the matter.
  Whether it is acknowledged or not, we have been assisted by the national and international reiteration of that point of view. It is all very well to be sceptical about a president here, a past president there or a general somewhere else, but that reiteration has had an overall impact throughout the island of Ireland. People have come to the point of view that we advocated five, six, seven or eight years ago: disarmament and the verification of that process have to take place.
  I shall not be terribly disturbed if somebody plucks a euphemism from the air and puts it in place of my term—disarmament—and my requirement for verification, nor shall I worry about what term is used. I shall not worry as long as the process moves forward. I have an expectation that arises from the unique statement by P. O'Neill, although I do not know whether I am right to do so. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister can tell me. The IRA referred not to some of its arms, but to "our" arms. I expect that to mean all its arms—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) makes a remark from a sedentary position. I shall give way if he wishes.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the IRA will make all its arms available for inspection, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. I did use another word, which was fool.
  Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman abuses me, but I shall not react to that. Some people probably considered me to be a fool during the years in which I put on a uniform and faced up to terrorists. Perhaps people such as me were also considered to be fools because we faced up to the reality of death for the benefit of society, our children and their future.
  I was referring not to what I believe the IRA will do, but to what I would expect it to do on the basis of the statement. I expect—I require, if that pleases the hon. Member for Macclesfield more—"our" arms to mean all its arms. Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa must be able to inspect the dumps in which those arms lay. The fact that P. O'Neill has drawn those two people into the

  293
  equation leaves the IRA open to criticism. Let us forget its terrorism for a moment. The whole raison d'être of its members as republicans—people with a political aspiration—would be held up to international ridicule if this step forward, and it is only a step, was seen to be a cod or a deceit. By continuing the international commission's work, the House will say that, ultimately, we require nothing short of decommissioning, or disarmament as I like to call it.
  If the interim confidence-building measure is to have any meaning for us, Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa must have access to the sort of information held by the commission. We are assured by General de Chastelain that they will have the co-operation of the commission on one issue in particular: the quantity and type of weapons. How can the verification of the two inspectors have any meaning if they do not understand the volume, or quantity, of arms that they must inspect?
  I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to ensure that one thing happens that did not happen in January. When reports are presented, Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa will present a report to the Governments, through the commission, and the commission will present reports to the Governments. Will the Minister reassure me that there will not be a hiatus such as the one that we saw in January, when a report was suppressed and the commission's credibility was diminished—I hope only temporarily—because the Government had suppressed that report?
  Mr. Ingram: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks—the assurance that was given to his right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) in a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister. I was aware of that letter, but I wanted it to be put on the record.
  I have never expected us to achieve all that we hope to achieve—to put right every wrong and every injustice that has occurred. How can we put right some of the injustices of the past 30 years? I believe, however, that we can at least impose such an obligation, and create such an atmosphere among the vast majority of people—with the support of the nation and the international community—that sooner or later we will achieve the ultimate objective. Gone are the days, I want to believe, when "Not a single rusty bullet" was what we heard in response to the requirement of our society that illegal weapons and illegal organisations should become a thing of the past.
  12.38 am
  Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who made an important speech. Unusually, I wish that he had spoken for longer in the same vein. He often makes lengthy speeches when I think that he should be more succinct. The hon. Gentleman was clearly not being soft on the IRA, but wanted to use, extend and develop the current position to secure the objective that he had had all the time.
  I appreciate that aspects of Unionism will involve reservations and concerns about the current situation. After all, decommissioning was supposed to have happened by about now—the complete disarmament
  294
  referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Instead of that, however, at the time by which that should have been achieved the re-establishment of the Executive is taking place. That is not to say that I am against the re-establishment of the Executive, but it was a demand made when the Executive was suspended, particularly by Sinn Fein. Therefore, in a sense Sinn Fein has got the Executive going at a time when complete decommissioning should have taken place.
  The other thing that must worry Unionists is that we are extending the order. They have been through that on many occasions in the past: we had direct rule after direct rule extended year by year. There is always something unsatisfactory about measures of that nature, but the order, like the suspension of the Executive, is something that I support entirely. Those measures seem to have been entirely essential in the circumstances that surrounded them. They were essential both for the peace process to take place and to go forward.
  I disagreed with one aspect of what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said about what would happen if arms were finally put out of use. He believed that, to some extent, it was a symbolic move that had to take place. It is much more significant than that. Once numbers of arms are put beyond use and destroyed, the situation of the IRA will be entirely different.
  It is not a matter of the IRA just going around and buying a few more guns to replace those weapons. It must be mobilised and organised to do that. How would it do it? Extra finances might need to be raised. Its members would be told to rob more banks. They would say, "What are you telling us to do? To rob more banks after you have just given the guns away, which now need to be replaced?" Therefore, I think that the move is of great practical significance. Getting to a situation where weapons begin to be out of use, to be controlled and to be contained is of significance to the whole psychology and attitude of the IRA.
  Therefore, the IRA statement is of deep significance to that organisation. It is an admission that the arms struggle is to end. It should have gone further; it will need to do so. It will need to be pressed and pushed, but a big, significant change has taken place. We must grab hold of it and seek to develop it. We need the loyalist paramilitary organisations to follow that particular path quite quickly—to follow at least the proposals that the IRA is putting forward. We need them to begin to go beyond that and even to talk about disbanding. That is the logic of the IRA putting arms out of use.
  If a paramilitary organisation does not have its arms to draw on, it is changed entirely. Will it change into something else, or will it disappear? It should disappear. Then, if people want to get into the political process, they will do so through their political wing—within Sinn Fein—hopefully acting entirely legitimately and democratically, or getting used to acting legitimately and democratically, with a sea change over time in their approach and attitudes.
  The dynamic of the inspection will be quite important. The reports that will be produced, the pressure that that will put on the IRA and, generally, on the development of the political process, is very important. The whole future really depends on the reports that are being produced and on related developments. The process takes on board and develops the bread-and-butter issues that are

  295
  important in Northern Ireland politics, and it will be bedded in as long as we have the reports confirming that arms are beyond use.
  We are now within sight of fruition of the Belfast agreement—which is on track, despite the time—limit problems that I mentioned. However, we must always be alert to the fact that much more has to be done. We shall have to address the issues of intimidation, people being forced into exile and the need for the general disintegration of paramilitary activity, including the type of activity—in which it engages on estates—that can perhaps be characterised as IRA plc and from which it benefits financially very much.
  There is also always the possibility of paramilitary splits. I hope that such splits will be made into ever smaller groups, over which the authorities can take control, and over which political control may be exercised by an Executive that is up and operating in Northern Ireland.
  12.46 am
  Mr. Peter Robinson: There are not many words in the order that we are considering, but regardless of how much we scrutinise those words, we will not see in them the real reason why the order has been introduced. It has been introduced because of the folly of those who told us that the Belfast agreement had within it a requirement to decommission. Among those people were the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and no less a person than the Prime Minister. Both of them told the House and the people of Northern Ireland that there was an absolute requirement for decommissioning and that things would not happen unless decommissioning occurred. However, those things did happen.
  Prisoners were let out of jail, but no decommissioning occurred. Police were put on the altar for destruction, but no decommissioning occurred. All-Ireland bodies with executive power were established, but no decommissioning occurred. The representatives of unrepentant and armed terrorism got into government, but no decommissioning occurred.
  The date specified in the Belfast agreement envisaged the completion of decommissioning. Now, we are talking about extending that date without even having seen the start of decommissioning. The order therefore represents the folly of those who were suckered by the IRA's representatives into believing that, in exchange for the concessions that they made, they were going to get something in return.
  Today, we have already heard in the House of the willingness of that same group of people to be suckered yet again—to delude themselves into believing that what the IRA has said amounts to decommissioning. It does not. There is nothing in the IRA statement that meets the terms of decommissioning as stated in the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
  The 1997 Act required the destruction of weapons and—just as the Minister said—there are four ways of doing that. However, when he went further and gave an interpretation of that—that destruction includes making permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable—he should perhaps have paused a little longer at the word
  296
  "permanently", because it is absent from anything that is within the IRA statement. All it talks about is "putting beyond use"—but what does that mean? It is not interpreted in its statement. It has also not been interpreted by the representatives. However, people in this place feel themselves fit to interpret it as meaning decommissioning under the terms of the 1997 Act.
  We might have thought that, with all the sorry experience that they have had of being made fools of by the IRA, those people would hold their tongues a little longer before preaching to the people of Northern Ireland that what they are now being offered by the IRA is anything close to decommissioning. It is not. Once again, the IRA is trying to put the issue on the long finger and get back to government, still perpetuating the illusion that somewhere down the line we may get decommissioning. After all this time, I would have thought that the House would look more carefully at the Act that it passed.
  The weapons will be permanently inaccessible, but to whom? Inaccessible to the IRA, one might have answered a few weeks ago, but under the IRA's statement, its members are the only ones who will have access to their arms—they will not be inaccessible to the terrorists. The statement also says that the weapons will be permanently unusable, but unusable by whom? By the IRA, one might have said, but the IRA's members will be the only people who will be able to use them, if they so choose.
  The so-called confidence-building measure involves allowing two individuals approved by the IRA to inspect some of its arms dumps. The intelligence services say that there are more than 20 major arms dumps and hundreds of arms hides for the more operational weapons. It is envisaged that the IRA will allow people to look at three of them—not even necessarily the three largest. Are the logistics of that inspection to be given to the international body? They will certainly not be given to the security forces. The fact that three of the IRA's arms dumps will be inspected by two of its friends is supposed to be a great confidence-building measure that will assure the Unionist community that these people are genuine. The House can be certain that that is what the IRA envisages by putting its weapons beyond use.
  The Government and those who negotiated the Belfast agreement can no longer dangle in front of the people of Northern Ireland their claims of what they would get in return for their votes, because the community no longer believes them. The people have been fooled once, but they will not be fooled again.
  Before the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), talked about a stable situation, he might have thought of all those who are still victims of the weapons that the IRA claim it is going to put beyond use. The situation is far from stable. Mr. McGuinness—an army council member of the Provisional IRA and a leading Sinn Fein negotiator—tells us that he is prepared to allow those who carried out the most dastardly event in terrorist history in Northern Ireland to get away with their crime. He has said that he does not recommend those people to give the Royal Ulster Constabulary any information that they have. We are supposed to put our trust in this person, who is a leading member of the IRA army council. On the basis of those who have spoken, that is what the House is asking us to do. The people of Northern Ireland, particularly the Unionist community, will not tolerate their representatives

  297
  accepting the word of IRA terrorists as bona fide or regarding them as capable of keeping the promises that they interpret them to have made.
  The order would allow the Provisional IRA to string along the political process for a further year to get more concessions from the Government and from weak Unionists. I am glad that the overwhelming majority of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland is no longer suckered by the process or torn by those who invited them to embrace it.
  12.55 am
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I think that a short television programme of the previous three speeches should be shown to everyone in Britain and in the island of Ireland. I defer to many hon. Members in their knowledge of Northern Ireland, in their commitment to it and in their hard work on its behalf. Labour Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), have tried to untangle the difficulties of the situation, but the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) also demonstrated the extent of his strength of feeling and commitment, which have grown out of his long history of fighting terrorism in his part of the United Kingdom. He is clearly prepared to look forward to a better future and, little by little, to take some matters on trust—although obviously he will take what is said in the course of progress with large doses of salt and suspicion.
  However, the House then heard the poisonous comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who said that the former President of Finland and the former ANC general secretary were two friends of the IRA. That was the level to which he fell, as a reading of his speech will show. The hon. Gentleman is so out of touch and full of bile that he has nothing to contribute to the debate any more.
  I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. It was the cheapest—
  Mr. Peter Robinson: He spoke at an IRA rally.
  Mr. Connarty: I have never spoken at any such rally. Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene?
  Mr. Robinson: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman spoke at an IRA rally. I said that Cyril Ramaphosa spoke at a Sinn Fein-IRA rally.
  Mr. Connarty: Given Mr. Ramaphosa's background and the work that he has done in southern Africa—where reconciliation and peace have been the way forward out of the darkest times of apartheid—I am sure that he had much to say to the people who attended that rally. Perhaps what he said led them to make the statements that have been made in the past few days.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East has cheapened the debate by playing for votes. I was watching him as he spoke, and it was clear that he was not talking about the peace process. He was trying to win votes from the Ulster Unionist party, which enjoys the support of the vast majority of Unionists in Ulster. That sums up his view of what this debate has been about. He is interested only in cheap vote-getting. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland eject him from his seat for adopting that approach.
  298
  I hope that the order will be accepted without a Division, although I accept that that is unlikely, given the vote that was held on the previous order. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has often been said to work on the dark side of the political process, but I consider that he has been playing with the bright sciences of politics in working to achieve the geometrically possible, and vital, task of squaring the circle of the Northern Ireland dilemma.
  I supported the Act that set up the Northern Ireland Assembly, but opposed any attempt to set timetables, on the ground that they were precipitate. When the Assembly came to be suspended, I opposed the Government as I considered that suspension to be a precipitate act. The Government believed that the suspension would have benefits for the internal processes of the Ulster Unionist party, which they considered to be necessary.
  I thought that I was being consistent, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was being pragmatic. As a result of the suspension, we gained some space. The statement from the IRA is one of the most significant that has been made. People who refer to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 as the position from which there must be no deviation may not feel that the IRA statement is significant enough, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire, who said that the significance lay in the fact that it was the IRA speaking.
  In a meeting elsewhere in this building on the day when the 1997 Act was being debated, I accused Martin McGuinness of being a schizophrenic politician. I said that the position that he occupied meant that he could say, at one and the same time, "You're not talking about me because you're talking about the IRA", and, "You can't talk to me because you have to talk to the IRA—but the IRA says this, through my mouth." Now the IRA has said something in its own right. It has said that it will put its arms beyond use, completely and verifiably. The IRA has said that, not Sinn Fein. That is a new element in the debate.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the leading positions in Sinn Fein and the IRA are held by the same people? Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Pat Doherty, the vice-president of Sinn Fein, are all known and recognised by the security forces to be three of the seven-man IRA army council. So when Mr. McGuinness speaks, he is speaking as P. O'Neill.
  Mr. Connarty: That is the hon. and learned Gentleman's view of the information that he has. Whether it is true or not, it is significant that, as long as the Sinn Fein leadership said that it could not speak for the IRA and the IRA would not speak directly, there could be no agreement between the IRA and the political process. The difference is that the rubicon has been crossed. It might turn out to be a risk taken by the IRA and the Sinn Fein leadership to move the process forward, which might lead to fragmentation. My worry about suspending the Assembly was that, if the fragmentation was not small, but if large parts of the IRA, with weapons, broke off and joined other organisations, the resulting internecine warfare would kill people in Northern Ireland. It would not simply be a question of the IRA versus the IRA, but would probably involve lots of innocent people. I hope

  299
  that that does not happen, but there is still a question over the political and military situation in Northern Ireland to be resolved.
  I have no aim for Northern Ireland or southern Ireland in terms of whether they will end up being united or divided. I am a democrat. I spoke with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone at the launch conference of the Labour group of the Ulster Unionist movement for people interested in getting social reform on to the agenda. The three elements discussed were demilitarisation, democracy and the rule of law. We are moving steadily towards those three objectives. They may not be recognisable by people who see the process in terms that can be defined only by a 1970 perspective, but they are emerging, bit by bit, in Northern Ireland.
  I will fight for the right of the people of Northern Ireland always to remain within the Union of the United Kingdom if they so choose. In that way, I am a committed Unionist. I come from a Catholic and a nationalist background, but I am a democrat. That is the fundamental base.
  We have to move through this period, and part of doing so is passing the order to extend the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 for another year and, I hope, for further years to come. Decommissioning is restated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State as making weapons permanently unusable. For me, that is what decommissioning is about. I saw the previous Government spike themselves on their interpretation of decommissioning as handing over weapons. When I heard the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam), and the Prime Minister use the same terms in the early part of this Parliament. I thought that we would never be able to move beyond that impasse. I believe that we now have a formula that will move us through the impasse to a peaceful future.
  I believe that the militarists' theory will rot on the vine, and that the guns will rust in the dumps. Extending the 1997 Act for a further year will give us time to watch that happen.
  1.4 am
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity of making a brief contribution to the debate. I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty).
  There is one point that I should like to clarify, because it has come up several times. I refer to the comparison between Northern Ireland and South Africa. In South Africa, they were all South Africans. They are still having problems because they did not deal with the issue of weapons, and many folk, black and white, are suffering accordingly. I likewise understand something of the arguments of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).
  We are happy that there are people living today who might not be living if the bombs had continued to go off. On the other hand, there are others not able to walk around freely in Northern Ireland because of the continued terrorist beatings, whether by loyalists or republicans, in which weapons have been used—not simply crowbars and baseball bats, but even guns. The
  300
  cries that I have heard from those within the nationalist community, as well as those within the loyalist or unionist community, are that we have to deal with that situation.
  One of the things that amaze me, especially with regard to hon. Members from Scotland and others in the House, is that we rushed to take legal weapons away from people after a lunatic shot children in Dunblane, and yet we do not seem to have the same passion for removing weapons from terrorists who are defying the country and two Governments, as well as the American Government.
  In that context, I was speaking this morning to one who has laboured consistently with victims and others within Northern Ireland, right across the divide. He reflected the very point that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made tonight. He told me that people from the nationalist community, including leaders of that community, are saying clearly, without any equivocation, that we have been giving too much to the provos, without putting pressure on them.
  I represent Belfast, South, where one of those who previously had been active in republican terrorism is now calling himself the Northern Ireland Human Rights Watch. He has stated—this has not been refuted—that, although republican terrorists and paramilitary groups have said that people will not co-operate with the police, and that that is why the people are turning to the local provos to implement their mob law, the bulk of those who have been accused of social misdeeds have already been dealt with by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. People have been going to the police on those issues, but the argument is still going on in loyalist and republican circles that the gunmen on both sides are seeking to dominate their communities.
  When we are extending this amnesty for another year it is salutary to ask ourselves how many weapons have been handed in and destroyed or put out of use in the last two years. To the best of my knowledge, there has been only a handful, from the Loyalist Volunteer Force.
  There have been references to cynicism. Cynics in Northern Ireland are saying that the loyalist paramilitaries are not prepared to bring their weapons for destruction because they do not have that many; they have spent most of the money from their rackets to live a high life. It must be recognised that at times what seems to be cynicism is not cynicism, but realism. Maybe sometimes the House needs a dose of realism before starting to go down roads of dreams or fancies.
  There are those of us who want peace, but we will never have true peace as long as we continue to allow terrorists, of whatever hue, to run rings round democratic governments and put pressure on democratic Members.
  1.9 am
  Mr. David Winnick: I have always taken the view that more important than decommissioning was the political decision by the IRA that it could not achieve what it had set out to achieve—a united Ireland—through violence and terror. To me, that was the most crucial decision of all. I hope that there will be no reversal by the IRA.
  Decommissioning is important. It is important to bring about in Northern Ireland a society in which arms are not in the possession of paramilitaries of any kind, be they

  301
  republicans or loyalists. The IRA statement is to be much welcomed; it is a step forward. Since the IRA ceasefire, Sinn Fein has said that it cannot speak for the IRA. Of course, we know that there is a close link between IRA and Sinn Fein, but IRA has spoken clearly. Whatever one might say about that organisation—I have never been reluctant to condemn its violence, as hon. Members will know—when it says that it will do something, it normally does so. So I have confidence that the IRA statement is genuine and that the IRA is willing go along the path that it has outlined. That is why I welcome the order.
  Reference has been made to the fact that the IRA has not given up its basic objective. However, have we not always argued in this place that it is perfectly legitimate in Northern Ireland to campaign for a unitary state? People in Northern Ireland have as much right to do that as those who argue that Northern Ireland should be part of the United Kingdom. However, we have said that it is wrong to try to bring about a united Ireland through terror and violence. Parliament has been unanimous about that for more than 30 years. Despite all our differences on domestic issues, we have been unanimous that we would not give in to terror and violence, and we have not done so. That fact should always be borne in mind.
  In a bitter and negative speech, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) demonstrated that, like his party, he is wholly opposed to the Belfast agreement. He is perfectly entitled to hold that view. However, when we listen to him, to the leader of his party, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), we should bear in mind that they do not want the implementation of the agreement. They were against it from the beginning. They do not want an all-inclusive government in Northern Ireland; they believe that to be wrong and inappropriate.
  However, we—the vast majority of Members—believe that, given the traditions of Northern Ireland, the best and most effective means for good government is to bring the two communities together. That is what the Belfast agreement is about. I want to see an end not only to the terror and violence, but to punishment beatings—to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred—whether carried out by republicans or loyalists. Such beatings are unacceptable on the mainland; they should be unacceptable in Northern Ireland. I hope there will be a decrease in, and then an end to, those beatings, which demonstrate such brutality and indifference to the rule of law.
  I conclude my brief remarks by pointing out that, undoubtedly, a huge majority in Northern Ireland was for the Belfast agreement. If people on the mainland had had a vote on the Good Friday agreement—if there had been a referendum in this part of the United Kingdom—there would have been an even larger majority for its implementation than there was in the Irish Republic. That is the way forward in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will lead to a guaranteed peace, and that violence and terror will come to an end so that people in Northern Ireland can live the same sort of life as those of us on the mainland—a life without the fear of being killed or tortured. It is because I believe that the Belfast agreement is the way to bring that about that I hope that it will be implemented, and that the situation in Northern Ireland will be very different from that which has prevailed during the past 30 years.
  1.14 am
  Mr. Robert McCartney: It has been said that there is a very fine line between blind optimism and complete foolishness. Much of what has been said in support of the proposed order verges on the latter.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) made a quite unprovoked and personal attack on the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). We have heard suggestions that an overwhelming majority of people, particularly in the pro-Union community, voted for the agreement. It is true that, in the referendum, there was, perhaps, a slight balance in the Unionist community in favour of the Belfast agreement. What brought that about? It was brought about by pledges given by the Prime Minister in his own handwriting that certain things would occur. One of those things was that decommissioning would have to be accomplished before representatives of Sinn Fein entered into an Executive.
  Decommissioning has a long history. Each position on decommissioning that has been assumed by British Governments has been resiled from. Initially, under paragraph 10 of the joint declaration of December 1993, the representatives of terror were not to be permitted even into negotiations unless they had undertaken permanently to give up violence and to engage in the process of democracy.
  The Conservative Government then took up the further position that, until there was an actual handover of weaponry or a proportion of weaponry—the so-called Washington three principle—there would be no prospect of Sinn Fein and other terrorist groups being allowed into negotiations. That position was resiled from.
  We then had a promise that, if Sinn Fein were allowed into the negotiations—the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland repeated this ad nauseam—there would be a twin-track process and that, on the day on which a political agreement was reached and when that train arrived in the station, a train would also arrive with IRA weaponry. The Belfast agreement was reached and it was subsequently approved in a referendum, but not one single round of ammunition or one single ounce of Semtex was removed. However, as I have already said, prior to the referendum, it was suggested—indeed, it was promised and pledged by the Prime Minister—that decommissioning would occur. That pledge has been broken.
  Then we had a seismic shift in July of last year and, currently, we have what is described as the great breakthrough—a new seismic shift. That does not amount to a hill of beans. The very first paragraph of the IRA statement makes it absolutely clear that there will be no lasting peace until its objective of a united Ireland is achieved. That is the first and most basic prior condition in this so-called IRA statement.
  The second paragraph makes it patently clear that the Belfast agreement is considered to be only what the IRA and Sinn Fein have always claimed it to be—a transitional phase en route to Irish unity. That is Sinn Fein's phrase; it is not a Unionist phrase. It is Sinn Fein's description of the agreement. The second paragraph of this magical IRA statement makes exactly the same point. If the Belfast agreement is implemented in full according to IRA specifications, it can provide the political context in an enduring process—the so-called peace process—in which the causes of conflict can be removed and the potential

  303
  for the end of the conflict provided. The IRA recognises the agreement for what it is—a transitional phase en route to Irish unity.
  To what does the agreement, as a confidence-building measure, amount? The IRA will select, by location and contents, a number of its dumps—perhaps three—to make available to the two international inspectors, but those dumps will never be removed from its control. The dumps to be inspected will almost certainly represent only a tiny fraction of the IRA's total armoury, which will remain at all times immediately available.
  The IRA goes on to say that if the British Government facilitate its demands, it will consider alternative modalities to those already laid out in the schemes that General de Chastelain was to supervise. At every point in the IRA statement there is a conditional clause. The fundamental condition is that, as long as the process continues to take the IRA irreversibly en route to Irish unity, its guns will remain silent. They will not be used, but they will not be destroyed or dispensed with. Why not? As long as the political process delivers the objectives for which the guns have been used, they will remain silent, but as soon as the process ceases to provide that irreversible thrust towards Irish unity, the guns will be available.
  It has been suggested that people are cynical. I have lived all my life—64 years—in Northern Ireland. My son is married to a Catholic; I have full cousins who are Catholics; I have employed Catholics and I have been employed by Catholics and the Catholic Church. I have no objection to republicanism, although I do not share its views, or to nationalism, but I have a fundamental democratic objection to sharing power with gangsters, thugs and gunmen who threaten the principles of democracy with force. While the guns remain silent, their threat is none the less powerful.
  A report in Dublin's Sunday Business Post said that the true basis of the IRA's agreement is that three or four weeks ago at Chequers, representatives of the IRA and Sinn Fein met the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and made it clear that, unless their terms are accepted, there will be a renewed bombing campaign on the mainland during next year's elections.
  I believe, as do many people in Northern Ireland, that the fundamental policy driving the whole peace process has little to do with political settlement in Northern Ireland; the imperative is to keep bombs off the mainland at any cost. That policy of appeasement will continue and will be leeched upon by the IRA. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I do not share the optimism of other hon. Members. I sincerely wish that I could do so, but I think that it will prove to be misplaced. The order merely extends over years the time in which the representatives of terror can toy with the principles of democracy.
  1.23 am
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) has excelled himself by being even more negative than usual. I sometimes think that if he won the lottery, he would complain that the cheque was sent by second-class post. On a more serious point, it is easy to be cynical and doubtful, and it is also cheap, but it is important to find
  304
  ways forward. It is extraordinary that any hon. Member can make a lengthy speech without once referring to the great gains that have been made in the past few years, which have been much more peaceful, allowing all the people of Northern Ireland to live in better circumstances.
  To take up a point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), when the IRA leadership said on 6 May that it would put arms beyond use—which it has never said before—it would have been easy to reply, "Does it mean it? How can we prove it?" I should point out that the IRA has been well aware of international criticism of its slowness in moving forward. People have asked, "Why doesn't it get on with it? What is the big difficulty?" It has been aware of that. If its actions were to turn out grudging or there were attempts to deceive the international inspectorate, it would lose credibility in the international community generally. So, having made such a statement, it has to be able to move forward.
  People have been talking as if the IRA were one monolithic block of opinion, but none of us should underestimate the difficulties of the peace-mongers in the IRA and Sinn Fein in determining to move along the paths of peace. We should not underestimate what they would have been up against among some of their more hard-line colleagues in achieving such movement. It is therefore important to get behind the statement and to ensure that it is acted on.
  I was wryly amused by the fact that, after commenting in the previous debate that, although over the issue of flags the SDLP would be in a difficult position, it was easy to predict that all parties would encounter difficulties over one issue or another, just a few minutes later the hon. Member for Belfast, East did his utmost to make life difficult for the Ulster Unionist leadership—not because he thinks that it is constructive to do so, but because it is simple vote-grabbing from another segment of Unionism. That is truly deplorable because the leadership of the Ulster Unionists has been extremely positive and deserves a lot of credit.
  If the heart of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will stand it, I will say that I agree with much of what he said. His comments were very constructive. Yes, we must recognise that breakaway groups from the IRA will hold on to their arms, but we cannot hold the IRA responsible for the actions of such groups any more than we can hold Unionist Members in this Chamber responsible for the actions of loyalist extremists and breakaway groups. If we do not grab hold of this opportunity, there will be difficulty putting pressure on all those groups to come up with the goods and to follow the path of peace, which is obviously what the people of Northern Ireland want.
  Earlier today, I listened to a little of the debate in another place, in which some extraordinary comments were made. One of their lordships said that the Minister was looking on the matter with rose-tinted spectacles simply because he wished to take up the prospect of moving forward which the IRA has opened up. A baroness whose name I did not catch questioned whether a Finn and a South African could do the job, which was an extraordinary thing to say. She asked whether the inspectors had ever seen Semtex or handled a gun. I should imagine, having been highly involved in the politics of South Africa over the past decade or two, they

  305
  most certainly had. Those are the sort of nonsensical arguments that one hopes not to hear, and we did not hear them in this Chamber.
  It has been said that an unknown quantity of arms will be held by individuals on both sides. I do not know how much. I dare say that the police in Northern Ireland have a pretty good idea and could estimate the amount reasonably accurately. Clearly, we must consider that in future, because it is of course unacceptable to deal with arms dumps but leave vast quantities of arms in the hands of individuals, regardless of whether they are political extremists. There could be another madman like Mr. Hamilton in Scotland. The sooner that we take arms out of civil society the better—whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United States. We need to move forward on getting rid of arms.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    COMPANIES
    That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Question agreed to.

  Autism
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  1.30 am
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and to my other parliamentary colleagues for keeping you all here at this time of night. However, having apologised, let me point out that this week is autism awareness week, so it is important to highlight autism and the important issues surrounding the condition. I am therefore delighted to have obtained tonight's Adjournment debate.
  I am especially pleased because on Monday evening, in the Jubilee Room off Westminster Hall, we held the public launch of the parliamentary all-party autism group, which I have the honour to chair. My hon. Friend the Minister has already addressed the group, and I am grateful to him for doing so. Its membership, which is still growing, includes more than 130 parliamentarians from all parties and both Houses. The group has received several dozen letters of support from parliamentarians who are not able to join, including members of all the Front-Bench teams and the Prime Minister himself. That is a remarkable display of support for a new specialist parliamentary group.
  The group is being generously sponsored by the Shirley Foundation—it is proper to place that support on the record and to acknowledge the generosity of the foundation and its founder, Dame Stephanie Shirley. Also providing support and advice for the group is a team comprising people from the National Autistic Society, the Parents Autism Campaign for Education, leading academics, and other individuals with an interest in autism.
  All those parliamentarians and strangers have come together because of their deep conviction that the causes and occurrence of and the support for autism require urgent review, and that such a review will reveal a need for the Government to increase the level of support available to autistic people. For the sake of clarity, let me state that, tonight, I shall use the word "incidence" to indicate the annual occurrence of autism within a given population, and "prevalence" to indicate the total number of autistic people in the population at any one time. "Autism" will be used to refer to the whole spectrum of autistic disorders, including Asperger syndrome.
  There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that the incidence of autism is increasing, and several studies by scientists of repute point to an increase. One such study suggested that, in one region of the United Kingdom, the increase in incidence might be as high as 25 per cent. compounded annually. In passing, I note that, in its 1998-99 annual report, the special educational needs tribunal reported a 360 per cent. increase in hearings related to autism during the preceding four years, making autism the second most common disability with which the tribunal deals.
  Some of the perceived increase is, no doubt, because of improved diagnosis or a broader classification of autism. However, in my view and, more significantly, in the view of most of the experts to whom I have spoken, the

  307
  underlying incidence of autism is increasing and the apparent increase is not just the product of better diagnosis. Some factor is causing the increase. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that many parents and even some academics believe that the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine or other vaccines are responsible; most clinicians and scientists disagree.
  I have written to several leading academics and some degree of consensus has emerged that an individual's potential to develop autism involves several genes, not one; and that different factors might be at work in establishing that potential. The expression of autism must be triggered in an individual with a predisposition towards it, and several different triggers may be involved.
  The condition may arise, therefore, in different people as a result of different mechanisms. At this stage, there are several environmental factors, including the vaccination programme, that cannot be ruled out as factors for at least a subgroup of the population of people who have autism.
  Given that complexity and the view in the scientific community, it must surely be the duty of Government to initiate studies that can finally decide the controversy. We need to answer the question, "Is the incidence of autism increasing?" If the answer is yes, we must isolate the factors that are at work.
  It must also be the job of Government to ensure that support for autistic people is planned for. To do so, we must know the prevalence of the condition. On 14 January 1999, in a written answer to me, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), told me that his Department did not collate data in respect of the number of autistic people, but relied on local authorities to do so.
  I can tell my hon. Friend that recent inquiries by individuals and voluntary organisations indicate that many local authorities do not collate that data, so we do not know, nationally or locally, how many autistic people there are. How can we plan adequately, when we do not know how many people we are planning for?
  Let me summarise. We do not know how many autistic people there are and how many there will be. We cannot therefore be sure whether we as a society are doing something to cause the condition. We do not know whether we could reduce the incidence by doing something differently, by stopping doing something or by starting to do something. We cannot plan adequately for supporting autistic people, as we do not know accurately, locally or nationally, how many people have the condition.
  We can make some estimates. A study by Wing and Gould carried out in Camberwell was published in 1979. Another study in Gothenburg by Ehlers and Gillberg was published in 1993. Using those studies, the National Autistic Society estimates that 91 in 10,000 people have conditions on the autistic spectrum.
  At the launch of the all-party group on Monday night, Dr. Fiona Scott of Cambridge university announced her recent findings, which are to be published in The Lancet in the next week or two. They indicate that one in 175 children in Cambridgeshire is autistic.
  Those are frightening figures. Some people with an interest in the condition have started to speak of an epidemic. The figures must surely concern and may even
  308
  frighten the Government. The figures suggest that on average, every English and Northern Irish Member of Parliament has more than 800 constituents with an autistic spectrum disorder. Every Scottish or Welsh Member of Parliament must have more than 600 autistic constituents. Accurate figures are needed to plan support and care. The Government should initiate such research urgently.
  If those figures alone do not frighten my hon. Friend, let me tell him the recent estimate of the cost of autism. The real cost of autism, we all know, is in heartache, but let us consider the financial implications. The average lifetime cost of supporting an autistic person has been estimated at £2.9 million. That excludes the loss to the economy as a result of autistic people who cannot live independently and earn their own living. The total cost to the economy is about £1 billion a year. Those figures should start appearing on the Chancellor's radar screen, never mind my hon. Friend's in the Department of Health.
  If the condition were better understood and causal factors could be reduced, the costs could be reduced. If those who develop the condition receive early diagnosis and intervention, and if they get the right support and the right education package, diet and health care, many will make huge progress and will eventually be able to live independent and productive lives.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I agree with him about the importance of early intervention, but on the basis of inquiries that I have made in my area, following a number of case studies brought to me by a couple with an autistic child, I can tell him that early intervention is not taking place in my area because of the difficulty in recruiting specialist staff, the lack of co-ordination between various parts of the health service and between the NHS and the education service, and the failure of one body to take a sufficient lead in promoting early intervention.
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of my key points is that, without planning and co-ordinated work, there will be cases such as my hon. Friend described in every constituency and every hon. Member will come across constituents in exactly that predicament.
  We need good planning. However, without accurate data, it is difficult to ascertain how we can achieve that. Diagnosis and treatment are patchy at best, and regional standards are highly variable. Best world practice should be identified and used throughout the United Kingdom. If diets or nutritional supplements are shown to have benefits, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence should say so, and health authorities should make them available on the national health service.
  Educational provision is often poor and inappropriate. People with Asperger syndrome are often very bright but they are treated in the same way as those with profound learning difficulties. Many parents have to fight like tigers to have their children statemented and to find an appropriate school place.
  One of my constituents was in a mainstream school until he was bullied. He was transferred to a special school, where he had a violent episode, which was almost certainly the result of the upheaval. He was excluded and is no longer acceptable in any school. He is effectively a prisoner in his own home. That is true not only of him but of his parents because they have to stay at home and look after him.

  309
  Best practice must be identified and implemented throughout the United Kingdom. I am pleased that the Government have already been involved in setting up a working group to establish and disseminate best practice on education for autistic children. However, there is a long way to go.
  Residential provision for school children and autistic adults is often far from family and of variable quality. We must make sure that high quality provision is plentiful and available. Local government has statutory responsibility to provide for the care of autistic people, but the care is often unplanned and of poor quality. If local authorities do not even count the people they care for, how can they plan it adequately?
  Regional variations must be ironed out and local authorities called to account. If ever a subject required joined-up Government, it is autism. We desperately need research into incidence and prevalence, followed by joined-up planning of services throughout the UK. The Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment, local government, voluntary organisations and charities, the Medical Research Council and other research funders, the clinical, academic and scientific communities must be brought together to work on the matter.
  Autism is a huge and growing problem. It causes misery, heartache and massive costs. I know from previous meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister that he and the Government recognise and sympathise with the problems. I hope to hear soon that they will act aggressively to deal with some of them. The misery caused by the condition has sometimes brought tears to my eyes. It is difficult enough to experience a parent's pain second hand, but imagine the stress and distress that the families of some autistic people experience as they fight for diagnosis, battle for a statement for their child, struggle for treatment, education and support for a loved one. Sometimes they cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel.
  There is no reason why we should not aspire to the best standards in the world: the best practice in diagnosis, the best standard of treatment, the best practice in early intervention, education, support and long-term care.
  If I had one wish—I do not expect my hon. Friend to grant it tonight because that is not the way in which Adjournment debates work—it would be for him to tackle prevalence and incidence by initiating the required research for accurate data. He could instruct local authorities to collate their data using a standard diagnostic model and report them to him annually. That quick and cheap fix would at least get us started. With the research councils, he could also plan appropriate studies of incidence and potential causal factors. They would take much longer, but the sooner they start, the sooner they would report.
  If I had a second wish, it would be for my hon. Friend to pull the other Departments together, begin a programme to identify best practice in health, education and support for autistic people and consider how and where we could introduce change. Such a project may even be a suitable candidate for Cabinet Office co-ordination as it would cross so many departmental boundaries. If he cannot give such commitments tonight, perhaps he could offer them to me in writing in a few days, after he has discussed the report of the debate with his officials.
  310
  Those wishes are not unreasonable. I hope that my hon. Friend will grant them to me and, more importantly, to autistic people and their families around the country. The problem is massive and growing. The real cost is heartache and blighted lives. Autism represents an urgent case for action.
  1.46 am
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on securing a debate on what every Member of the House accepts are important issues. Many Members, including me, have recently met parents of autistic children in their constituencies and heard a familiar litany of concern about the provision and adequacy of services. Let me make it clear that we take these matters very seriously. We are happy to work with others to make progress on a range of issues to improve the services that we provide for autistic people.
  Before I respond to some of the specific concerns raised by my hon. Friend, I pay tribute—in autism awareness week—to the valuable work done by the National Autistic Society and other organisations to raise awareness of the needs of children and adults with autistic spectrum conditions. The formation of the new all-party autism group is testimony to their effectiveness in bringing together those with a common interest in improving services for people with autistic spectrum disorder. I look forward to working with the all-party group. Over the years, the Department of Health has given substantial grants to support the National Autistic Society's work and, together with colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment, officials continue to engage in dialogue over the full range of concerns. That will continue.
  We are all aware that the number of children identified as having autism is increasing. My hon. Friend reminded us of that, although the full explanation is not clear. It may be due, at least in part, to welcome improvements in diagnosis and to changes in the way in which autistic spectrum disorder is identified. I acknowledge that autism is a matter of increasing concern in this country and abroad. There have been considerable increases in awareness and our knowledge and understanding continue to grow, so we need to ensure that policy is properly re-evaluated in the light of the latest evidence.
  As my hon. Friend said, estimates of the prevalence of autistic spectrum disorder vary. That is partly due to variations in definition, although most people seem to agree that the prevalence of classic autism is four to five cases per 10,000 of the population. The prevalence of Asperger syndrome is less certain. A recent estimate given to the Department is that it appears to affect 29 children in every 10,000. The prevalence of all autistic spectrum disorders is more difficult to estimate, but, as he informed us, it could be as high as 91 per cases per 10,000.
  The Department has recently been in dialogue with the National Autistic Society over prevalence—about which my hon. Friend, like me, is substantially concerned—and we look forward to the meeting of experts, which will discuss that issue and which we understand the society will convene in the near future. We shall consider what further action we should take in the light of the meeting. We recognise that we need to know more about the

  311
  prevalence of autism and any changes in prevalence. This is a complex issue, as he rightly said, and we need to work together to identify the best way forward.
  Establishing the cause of autism will help to prevent, identify and treat that distressing condition. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, last month, the Medical Research Council, which is funded by the Government, announced that it has provided £344,000 to fund one of the largest autism studies ever attempted.
  The two-year study, to be led by Professor Andrew Hall of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, will attempt to find out what causes the condition. The researchers will study whether autistic children have a history of other conditions or medical problems, such as problems during birth. They will look at whether viral infections in the womb or soon after birth appear to play a role in producing autism. By examining a representative sample of health records drawn from more than 2 million people registered with 300 general practices across the UK, the researchers will also be able to examine any possible association between autism and the MMR vaccine. That substantial piece of research will, I hope, constitute a landmark that will help us to understand autism better.
  Experts agree that treatment for autistic children should preferably be begun early. My hon. Friend made that point. The Government recognise the importance of collaboration between health, social services and education agencies to facilitate early identification and effective intervention, and we are acting in a number of key areas to ensure such facilitation. We have launched the quality protects programme, involving investment of £375 million to improve services radically for children in need. The programme is developing and supporting partnerships between local authorities, health services and the voluntary sector. My hon. Friend called for all those things. It is also improving assessment, care planning, record keeping and quality assurance systems. Children with autism will be among those benefiting from this major new investment.
  The Government are also investing £452 million in sure start, which involves 250 local programmes in deprived areas for families with a child under four. Two of the key programme objectives are to improve children's social and emotional development by providing early identification of, and support for, children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, and to improve children's ability to learn—for example, through early identification and support of children with learning difficulties.
  The Government have also increased investment in child and adolescent mental health services by £90 million between 1999 and 2001-02 to improve the provision of appropriate, high-quality care and treatment for children and young people, by building up locally based services. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said that he felt that services in his constituency were not adequate. If he is prepared to write to me, I shall be happy to look into the circumstances that he has described: they are clearly not acceptable.
  National priorities guidance issued to health and social services makes it clear that they should be improving staffing levels and training provision, and also improving
  312
  liaison between primary care, specialist child and adolescent mental health services, social services and other agencies.
  We are particularly concerned—my hon. Friend did the House a service in drawing attention to this—about reports of delays that beset families who are worried about their child's development. Sometimes there is insufficient co-operation between child development centres and child and adolescent mental health services. While families in some parts of the country must put up with delays of months and even years, in other parts of the country there has been joint planning between health and social services, the child development centre and CAMHS, so that children with suspected communication difficulties can have prompt access to local assessment services.
  We must recognise that there are difficulties in recruiting child psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in some parts of the country, but it is clearly not acceptable for families to wait for long periods for assessment and treatment, which often represent the crucial stage in a young person's development. CAMHS development strategies are now required from health and social services authorities, and will be expected to tackle problems of delay. If we can provide a prompt and effective service in one part of the country, it should be possible to do so everywhere.
  By improving the general level of services for children, including those with disabilities or mental health problems, we are trying to provide the infrastructure to deliver better services for children and young people with autism. Similarly, the steps that we are taking to modernise health and social services for adults, and to make them more responsive to individual need, will benefit autistic people and their families. For instance, the new flexibilities introduced in the Health Act 1999 should help to ensure closer co-operation between the various agencies involved in identifying and meeting the needs of autistic people. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet was entirely right that the best services would be properly joined up and linked across local organisational boundaries.
  Within the context of our more general initiatives, we have been taking action to improve services for autistic people: both those with a learning disability and those without. For example, in 1998, we published "Signposts for Success", good practice guidance on commissioning and providing health services for children and adults with learning disabilities, including those with autism. Last year, we followed that up with "Once a Day", a booklet setting out good practice for primary health care teams, which includes a reminder to those working in the teams that autistic disorders occur frequently with a learning disability.
  Last year, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that we were starting work on developing a national learning disability strategy. That strategy will cover everyone with a learning disability: children as well as adults. Many, but of course not all, will also have autism.
  We are involving a wide range of interests in the development of the strategy through working groups, seminars and formal and informal meetings with individuals and organisations. Later in the summer, we will consult the National Autistic Society specifically on children's issues relating to the strategy.

  313
  Although that will be primarily a strategy for health and social services, clearly, it is important that the needs of people with learning disabilities should be addressed as a whole. Consequently, we are involving other Government Departments, as my hon. Friend wants us to do, including the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Social Security and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in the strategy's development. Our aim is to launch it by the end of the year.
  We have been undertaking some work on the needs of autistic people who do not have a learning disability. Late last year, we commissioned Dr. Tony Holland to undertake a review of the current issues surrounding the diagnosis, management and treatment of children and adults with Asperger syndrome. We have received his report and are considering his recommendations. The views of the National Autistic Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and other interested organisations will be fully taken into account as we decide on the way forward.
  There are many other things that I should like to say, but, sadly, I think that I will not be able to say all of them. I accept my hon. Friend's point about the importance of education services and the need to ensure that the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health work closely in continuing to find ways to improve the services that we provide to children with autism and to their families. There is much work for us to do in that area.
  My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the report by the National Autistic Society entitled "Inclusion and Autism: Is It Working?" found that an increasing number of parents of autistic children said that they were satisfied with the education offered to their children. Compared with two years ago, 40 per cent. more parents
  314
  said that they were satisfied with their child's education. Eighty per cent. said that their child was better served in mainstream schools.
  My hon. Friend has done his constituents, the House and everyone with autism a service in raising those important issues. It is clear from what he said—and probably from what I have said, too—that, although we have made a positive start, there is still, as I am sure all hon. Members who are present in the Chamber will accept, much to do. We accept that point. We are looking seriously at the issues that he has raised, particularly issues about the data with which we can better plan services.
  My hon. Friend is right. If we are to develop effective policies and services locally, and to ensure that the extra investment that is going in is effectively spent, we will need better information about the prevalence of autism. As I have said, we are working closely with the National Autistic Society to find the best way in which to take that work forward.
  We accept that that is a perfectly valid criticism of the present situation. It is not a good situation in which to find ourselves. Obviously, good research information is the essential underpinning to ensure that policy development is effective and well targeted, but, with his support and that of other hon. Members, we have a special opportunity to develop services effectively.
  We are certainly up for that. As I have said, we look forward to working with all people of good will who share our ambition to improve the range of services that we provide to people with autism and their families. That is the right thing to do. It is certainly what the Government want to do.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Economic System
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
10 am
Mr. Tony Benn: On 23 April 1901, Keir Hardie, the then Member for Merthyr Tydfil, moved the following motion:
That, considering the increasing burden which the private ownership of land and capital is imposing upon the industrious and useful classes of the community, the poverty and destitution and general moral and physical deterioration resulting from a competitive system of wealth production which aims primarily at profit making, the alarming growth of trusts and syndicates able by reason of their great wealth to influence Governments and plunge peaceful Nations into war to serve their interests, this House is of the opinion that such a condition of affairs constitute a menace to the well-being of the Realm, and calls for legislation designed to remedy the same by inaugurating a Socialist Commonwealth founded upon the common ownership of land and capital, production for use and not for profit, and equality of opportunity for every citizen.—[Official Report, 23 April 1901; Vol. 92, c. 1175.]
I had asked for a debate on socialism, but I was summoned to the Table Office and told that as no one had ministerial responsibility for socialism, it would have to be about wealth and poverty in the economic system. A Treasury Minister has obligingly attended.
I want to look back to the roots of socialism, to celebrate what it is about and to see what relevance it may have to today's society. In doing so, I am bound to refer to some of its origins. The Bible has led to many revolutionary ideas—for instance, that we were and are all equal in the sight of God—which is why, in 1401, the House of Commons passed the Heresy Act, which condemned any lay person reading the Bible to be burned at the stake for heresy. The Bible has always been a controversial document. At the time of the peasants' revolt and the English revolution, people started thinking of common ownership, based on the life of the apostles.
Socialism is essentially about the moral values that guide society, about democracy and about internationalism. Its history in England is interesting to me because it goes back deep into the past. In 1832—that may seem a long time ago, but it was only 18 years before my grandfather was born—only 2 per cent. of the population, all rich men, had the vote. The progress associated with socialism since then includes the Rochdale pioneers, who believed in co-operation; Robert Owen, the first man to call himself a socialist; the birth of the trade union movement, when the Combination Acts were repealed; the Chartists, and later the suffragettes, demanding the vote; the demand for representation in Parliament through a Labour representation committee; and, finally, the idea that if people had the vote they would have some democratic control over the economy as well as the political system.
2WH
If one considers the ideology or the basis of those ideas, Adam Smith and Karl Marx had something in common. Adam Smith said that the rich are the pensioners of the poor; that the rich live off the back of the poor. I do not want to shock the Chamber, but Karl Marx—the first philosopher to study British Capitalism—identified a marginal difference of economic interests between those who slogged their guts out creating the wealth and those who happened to own it. Both believed in self-organisation.
The programme of socialism is sometimes associated with nationalisation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The first nationalised industry in Britain was the Church of England, which was nationalised by Henry VIII. Next, Charles II nationalised the post. When I was Postmaster General, I wondered why. I found that he wanted to open everyone's letters, and he could do that only by creating the Royal Mail.
In June 1914, Winston Churchill nationalised British Petroleum. He paid £2 million for a commanding majority shareholding because he thought that the oil should be in the hands of the people. The BBC was nationalised by the Conservative party. Imperial Airways was nationalised by the Conservative party. The Army and the police, both of which are nationalised, have no relation with socialism whatever. I hope that Members will put out of their mind the idea that socialism is about running everything from the top.
The idea of socialism is of common ownership and that things are best done by co-operation. The Cooperative movement was based on that principle. Municipal ownership is a form of socialism. I pay tribute to the Liberal party, which, in the 19th century—when Joseph Chamberlain ran Birmingham—introduced the municipal ownership of housing, gas, electricity, transport, opera, art galleries and airports. I learned to fly at the municipal airport in Birmingham.
The idea evolved that poor people, who could not afford by their own wealth to acquire the things that they needed—education, health, housing and Transport—could buy them with their votes. The welfare state was the final development of this idea. In fairness to Lloyd George, the Budget that he introduced as Liberal Chancellor of Exchequer laid the foundations of the pension system.
Although socialism is widely held by the establishment to be outdated, the things that are most popular in British society today are little pockets of socialism, where areas of life have been excluded from the crude operation of market forces and are protected for the benefit of the community.
One of the great impetuses in the post-war years for the advance towards the welfare state—with its socialist inspiration—was the argument, which I remember well because I made it myself, that if the nation could plan for war, it could plan for peace. We had full employment during the war. If we could plan to have full employment to kill people, why could we not plan to have full employment in peacetime, and so be able to build the houses and provide all the nurses and teachers that we needed? This idea was strongly entrenched and was in some ways non-controversial.
What might be called caring conservatism—I use the phrase in a general spirit—was the idea in the minds of Winston Churchill and, before him, Harold Macmillan

3WH
in the 1930s with his book "The Middle Way". The idea was carried on by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). The right hon. Gentleman's powerful words, the
unacceptable face of capitalism—[Official Report, 15 May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 1243.]
were spoken by a Conservative Prime Minister. That may cause some concern to some of his supporters, but that is what he believed.
If one looks at the people who have described themselves as socialists in the last century, one finds two different types. I have mentioned what we were able to achieve in this country guided by the ideas that I have outlined. The Soviet Union had no democratic basis whatever for its socialism. It was born in revolution and suffered greatly in the war. In the end, the Soviet Union crumbled because, although the Soviet Communist party, which called itself socialist, was overwhelmingly the largest party, it did not have the consent of the people.
The other type are the Social Democrats, who abandoned socialism altogether. The most powerful advocates of capitalism today are to be found among the Social Democrats. I do not want to be controversial, but it is a fact that there are no more powerful advocates of market forces and globalisation than those in the party that describes itself as new Labour.
Although globalisation has brought a great deal of industrialisation, it has also produced acute poverty in the third world. The gap between rich and poor is wider now than a hundred years ago. There is the grossest exploitation of people in third world countries. People here can invest their capital in the third world, where wages are lower, and then lay off people in Britain—who then go on to unemployment benefit—and make their profits in much poorer countries.
Globalisation is said to be a form of internationalism. However, capital can be exported to another country to benefit from lower wages, but people from other countries who want to come here to benefit from increased wages are shut out by immigration laws. It is a limited, one-sided form of globalisation. Conflicts as deep as those that are caused by the division of wealth and poverty inevitably lead to war.
We made great advances towards democracy from 1832 to the end of the European empires and the creation of the welfare state, but the power in a globalised economy is unaccountable. Major multinational companies are not accountable to the people whom they employ or to the nations in which they work. I spent my life as a Minister negotiating with oil companies and large multinationals that were more powerful than nation states. Indeed, they operated in this country like a colonial power.
Such activities have severe implications for our political system, and we must consider what has become of politics. The idea of representation has been replaced with the idea of management. I represent the interests of the people of Chesterfield as best I can and I also represent my convictions. People know what my convictions are when they vote and can get rid of me if they do not agree with them. But now we are all being managed on behalf of a global economy. Someone once
4WH
said that, if we do not control the economy in the interests of the people, we have to control the people in the interests of the economy. That process is going on at a great pace.
We are told about our international competitors as if competition were at the core of a peaceful world; that is not a view that I share. The lack of accountability has a profound effect on the emerging democracies in the third world. They are often denied the benefit of the hundreds of years of parliamentary experience from which we gained. However, even in this country, the power of the multinationals is increasingly becoming such that Governments tremble before them. I was in the Cabinet in 1976 when we crumbled before the International Monetary Fund, which had serious consequences for the party and the Government.
We are now moving into another aspect of the political consequences of globalisation—the third way. The idea is that it would be better for all the good people at the top to get together. The project is a coalition of people who believe that there is a common view at the top and that that is the only way in which to manage the economy. It is a one-party state. As a Minister, I visited Moscow and met the central committee of the Communist party and the commissars. They had not been elected. I then went to Brussels and met the commissioners. They had not been elected. I met representatives of the central bank. They, too, had not been elected. The reduction of democratic control as a result of globalisation is a serious problem, and Europe is part of it.
I fear the consequences that will arise if people do not believe that they are represented. One consequence is apathy. If people do not vote because they do not believe that it makes a difference, the consequences for the legitimacy of the Government who win are profound. Low turnout is one aspect of that apathy. Clinton was elected by one in five of the American people; four out of five did not register, did not vote or voted against him. A low turnout, accompanied by cynicism, is a recipe for conflict and repression.
My age allows me to recall what happened in Germany before the war, where a despairing people turned to Hitler, who blamed the Jews and the trade unionists for their problems. He told the people that he would give them full employment, and by God he did—he rearmed them, and we had a war as a result.
It is necessary to say plainly and clearly that peace without social justice is impossible. We cannot have a peaceful society or a peaceful world if the principles of social justice are secondary to the search for profit. A society that is built around people and not profit is what lies at the heart of the socialist idea.
In the debate to which I referred at the outset of my remarks, Keir Hardie concluded:
We are called upon at the beginning of the twentieth century to decide the question propounded in the Sermon on the Mount as to whether or not we will worship God or Mammon. The present day is a mammon-worshipping age. Socialism proposes to dethrone the brutal god Mammon and to lift humanity into its place.—[Official Report, 23 April 1901; Vol. 92, c. 1179.]
That is a very religious way of putting it, but it explains the idea that has moved people to do things. All real change comes from underneath. The idea of co-operation rather than competition appeals to most

5WH
people in their own lives. Competition creates insecurity and anxiety, while co-operation is always dominant when people look after their disabled children or their old parents. I think that that idea is of value.
I want to leave time for what will be a full debate, so I shall conclude on the policies that may follow from the ideas that I have advanced. First, we must expand the public services and ensure that they are publicly funded. In the immediately post-war years, the idea of national insurance was based on that of universal benefits. I do not believe that it is right for people to be means-tested before they are entitled to benefits for which they have paid, either through national insurance contributions or taxation. That is especially true of the need to link pensions with earnings. I am proud to have been in the Cabinet that made that link and I am distressed that it was reversed, at a cost of about £30 a week to pensioners. That provides a good example of what should be done.
We should have expanded public services for the provision of health care and education, which should be open, so as to allow every child access to the full range of knowledge in schools that are comprehensive in what they offer. Also, there should be access to the media, which does not usually cover the concerns of those who do not have wealth and power. I should add to that list the legal services, which are very expensive but absolutely necessary.
The second item on my list is the revitalisation of local government. I referred to the great Liberal achievements of the 19th century, and there are many examples of such achievements in the 20th century. Local government should have the funding that it requires, the right to raise its own money—if it can persuade its electors to give it that money—and general powers that are not tied up by specific grants that local authorities administer but do not decide.
Thirdly, if we are genuinely interested in the idea of full employment, it is essential that we support manufacturing industry. For most of my life as a Minister, I tried as best as I could—sometimes successfully, but generally not—to reverse de-industrialisation. In 1948, Britain launched 48 per cent. of all the ships launched in the world. In 1970, we had the largest motorbike industry in the world. In 1974, we had the largest machine tool industry and the largest car industry in Europe. That has all gone.
It is in the national interest to protect ourselves from invasion from abroad. We would resist anyone who tried to bomb our car factories, but if somebody buys and closes those factories, it is regarded as an inevitable consequence of globalisation. I do not think that that is a sustainable position. The same is true of privatisation. I hesitate to quote Harold Macmillan, but he said that privatisation was selling the family silver. That is not an example that would come immediately to mind for most families, but it was a vivid description of the sale of our natural assets.
We must have civil liberties. I refer not just to legal liberties and an end to discrimination, but to the acceptance of trade union rights. It is amazing that we talk about a global economy but that we do not legislate to implement the rights given to trade unions in the International Labour Organisation. I have introduced a Bill on the matter—the House may want to consider it—as such legislation is necessary.
6WH
We need a fairer tax system. I cannot understand why any Government should ring fence the rich and say, "Whatever we do, we will not ask you to pay more", when people on benefits are continually being faced with demands to open the books and be examined in an attempt to deal with benefit fraud. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) may wish to raise the question of the Tobin tax, which would tax international transactions and could provide billions of pounds for international development.
It is often argued that no one has any power over multinationals, but I do not believe that. Multinational companies spend millions of pounds on trying to win popular support through advertising campaigns because they know that it is necessary to retain the goodwill of host Governments. I believe that it is necessary to treat multinationals as international agents and to negotiate with them as if they were countries.
We must have stronger environmental laws. Keir Hardie was a passionate environmentalist, who complained about the rain forests in the United States being cut down. He was also a great believer in animal rights. On one occasion, Hardie was followed home from the House of Commons by a journalist from The Daily Mail, who hoped to find out to whom he talked in the street—no doubt, in an attempt to uncover some scandal. The journalist said that he patted all the horses that he saw in the street. Being a miner, Hardie appreciated the value of the pit pony.
We need to end the arms trade, which is far more serious than the drugs trade that receives so much attention. The arms trade allows arms manufacturers to arm both sides in a conflict. Then, when those arms are used, the world demands a ceasefire. I sometimes wonder whether the idea is to discover which arms work best so that more can be sold afterwards, as we saw in the case of the Exocet that sank HMS Sheffield during the Falklands war.
Finally, we should try to build the United Nations as an embryonic, democratic institution, in accordance with the aspirations of the Chartists, who want establish democratic government in Britain. If we are to have a global system, it must be a worldwide system, but it must be based on democratic accountability. My conviction is that the UN is being bypassed by NATO, whereas the UN should have responsibility, through the General Assembly, for controlling multinationals, which cannot be disciplined in any other way. The World Trade Organisation and the IMF should also be accountable to the United Nations General Assembly. That would be true internationalism rather than globalisation.
Those are my convictions. I am a socialist and I became a socialist through experience. After 50 years in the House and many years as a Minister, I realise the way in which power is exercised to shape our society. As I leave the House of Commons and approach a new political life at the end of this Parliament, I shall want to put those arguments to the electors as a non-candidate when the election comes, because I honestly believe that the ideas have much more support than the British establishment, any Government or the House yet realises.
All progressive change has come from underneath, and it might be worth remembering that there is a different tradition from those ideas with which we are

7WH
presented every day. If we remember that, we might make more progress in winning public support for what needs to be done.
10.23 am
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: It is a privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), whom I congratulate on securing this much-needed debate. Although we often debate individual issues in the House of Commons, this debate about the philosophy of socialism, which brought many right hon. and hon. Members into the Labour party, is not before time.
Coming into the Chamber this morning, I passed through the exhibition in Westminster Hall. Inscribed on one of the portrits were the words
Ordinary men and women have fought hard over the years for the right to vote.
However, the exhibition does not explain why people should struggle for the right to vote. In Britain, we have a tradition of parliamentary democracy. However, it was a flawed system in the early years—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said—because few people had the vote.
Working men and women struggled for the vote in the 19th century because they realised that peaceful change—a peaceful revolution against the semi-feudal system in parts of the countryside and the abuses of capitalism in the cities—could be achieved only by changing Parliament and obtaining representation. They saw the inequalities in society which, although they may not be as stark in Britain today, still exist.
My right hon. Friend referred to the taxation system. The fact that the highest rate of tax paid by most people in this Room is 40 per cent. of their income makes one wonder why people such as the Duke of Westminster pay only that rate. Clearly inequality exists in matters of raising revenue.
The struggles of the 19th century brought about the political democracy of today. However, democracy and socialism are indivisible. Despite the democracy in our civil society—our right to elect councillors to local authorities and to elect Members of Parliament—industrial autocracy remains. People in Birmingham can vote for the city council and their Members of Parliament, but in their day-to-day lives at Longbridge they have no say in the management of the firm and in the way in which capital is allowed, as my right hon. Friend said, to flow across the frontiers. The workers in our country—unlike, incidentally, those in the country of BMW—have no right to be properly consulted about changes in management and so have little control over the wealth created by their hard work.
Ministers—whether Labour or Conservative—who have been asked to intervene when factories have been closed in our constituencies have often replied that those are commercial decisions taken by private firms and that they cannot interfere with them. I would argue against that. Those decisions lead not only to job losses for employees; they have implications for the taxpayer because they lead to social costs. That is why, whenever a private firm decides to make part or all of its work force redundant, the state has a responsibility, acting on
8WH
behalf of the people who elected the Government, to intervene. The Government will have to meet the social costs of factory closure by raising taxation.
Socialists oppose the philosophy of economic liberalism which, to a large extent, was reintroduced to this country by Margaret Thatcher. The traditional conservatism of the earlier part of the century and the more compassionate conservatism of Harold Macmillan, mentioned by my right hon. Friend—one-nation Toryism—was not socialist, but it was very different from the Thatcherite philosophy. Economic liberalism perpetuates the class system.
Opponents of socialism will often say that the philosophy is not perfect and that we have had instances of dictatorship. My right hon. Friend referred to the Soviet Union. Socialism is no safer from abuse by bad, unscrupulous and dishonest people than any other system. However, the idea does not lose validity because of that. Hitler called his party a national socialist party and, in the Soviet Union, the Communist party referred to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. People might say that socialism has failed because of the aggression of the Nazis and because of the communist system that was installed in the Soviet Union. However, does Christianity lose its validity because of the inquisition, or because of the part that religious bigotry has played in the conflicts in Ireland? Of course not. Christians have an ethical and moral worth, as do socialists.
As far as ordinary people are concerned, we say that we live in a free country. The Americans—and Britons too, I suppose—often call the part of the world in which they live the free world. They talk about themselves as defending the free world. However, freedom loses its meaning if a person has no way of exercising it. The freedom to speak that very rich people have is, in many ways, the same as the freedom to speak that poor people have. However, the poor do not have the means to exercise that freedom in the fullest way and do not have the same opportunities as the rich to have a good life and a good lifestyle. We should address ourselves to that matter, as should the Labour Government. The market has a place in the economy but it should never be the master. Planning is an essential ingredient of socialism; the market must succumb to the higher values of the country.
It should be ensured that everybody has the right to free education. The position regarding tuition fees absolutely appals me. I was a lecturer for a quarter of a century before I became a Member of Parliament, and I saw the way in which students had to struggle even when they had maintenance grants. Now we see a situation in which many people will be deterred from entering higher education because of tuition fees.
Let us take a family with two children as an example. The parents pour so much money into the eldest child so that he might go to university or to a training college. The second child comes along, scores high marks in his A levels and is just as qualified as the first child to go to university. However, because of the tuition fee burden, the parents must encourage that child to do something that will not involve severe costs.
Some might think that the beliefs in socialism that the Labour party held throughout the 20th century are no longer the principles and values that we should preserve in the 21st century. I say to them that there is just as

9WH
much evidence today of the need for a redistribution of wealth; that is as much a basic tenet of socialist philosophy today as ever before. I hope that hon. Members will consider the facts given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and agree that we should move away from the greed and grab society that has arisen since 1979.
10.34 am
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) mentioned that he had secured a debate on socialism—its subject had to be described as wealth, poverty and the economic system, which is almost an Adjournment debate in itself—so that some of us might celebrate the centenary of Keir Hardie's debate on socialism. In 1901, the then hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil said:
I make no apology for bringing the question of Socialism before the House of Commons.
He went on to say:
We are rapidly approaching a point when the nation will be called upon to decide between an uncontrolled monopoly, conducted for the benefit and in the interests of its principal shareholders, and a monopoly owned, controlled., and manipulated by the State in the interests of the nation as a whole.—[Official Report, 23 April 1901: Vol. 92, c. 1175–79.]
The debate continues, and last Tuesday some Labour Members dared to suggest that national air traffic control was not a suitable subject for a monopoly conducted for the benefit and in the interests of its principal shareholders. We argued not for outright state ownership, but for a trust along the lines of the Canadian national air traffic services. We won the argument but not, sadly, the vote.
I want to talk about socialism, as reflected by my own family and constituency, and the political organisations that have been committed to it. The Keighley Labour Union was founded in October 1892, seven years before Keir Hardie's speech, by a local school teacher called Herbert Homer. That was probably a response to Isaac Holden, a Liberal, being returned to Parliament unopposed and the Manningham mill strike, just down the road in Bradford, which had ended the previous year. Homer was elected to the town council in 1894, the year after the founding conference in Bradford that created the Independent Labour party. That strong, socialist, almost evangelical movement really tried to build a Jerusalem among the dark satanic mills.
Keighley was one of the hundreds of northern towns that responded to the new movement by establishing a socialist Sunday school, a choir and a Clarion cycling club—almost an alternative socialist culture. Philip Snowden, who was to become a member of the first Labour Cabinet in 1929 and the party's financial guru, was a product of that early Keighley ILP. This year, we are also celebrating the centenary of the formation of the Labour representation committee from the ILP, the Fabian society and—temporarily—the Marx-inspired Social Democratic Federation.
The affiliation of the trade unions introduced the financial stability and the mass base that the ILP had lacked. The 1924 and 1929–31 Labour Governments demonstrated that the middle classes need not fear them. During that period, Keighley was represented by
10WH
its first Labour Member of Parliament, H.B. Lees-Smith, a well-regarded politician who fought the seat six times, winning four times and dying in office in 1942. The next Labour Government was, of course, the Attlee Administration of 1945, which transformed the commanding heights of the economy into public ownership. Bevan established the national health service and Jim Griffiths introduced national insurance, which laid the foundations of the welfare state. All that was too much for Ivor Thomas, the Member of Parliament for Keighley from 1942. He became the Shortly Floorcross of that generation when he joined the Conservatives. One wonders what the Keighley party and constituency felt at that time.
During the years in opposition, Keighley was represented from 1950 to 1959 by Charlie Hobson, who won three elections and lost one, by only 170 votes, to Marcus Worsley of the aristocratic Yorkshire family. Hobson was a power station engineer who was brought up in Leeds and ended his days as a Government Whip in the House of Lords. The days of hope returned to the party with the election of the Wilson Government in 1964 and again in 1966. Harold Wilson's enthusiasm for the "white heat of the technological revolution" carried his party and country with him, and in Keighley the aristocrat was replaced by a semi-skilled engineer called John Binns. Capital punishment was abolished in 1965, thanks to the lifelong crusade by Sidney Silverman from just across the border in Nelson and Colne. In 1967, the first race relations legislation was introduced and Barbara Castle made child benefit worth collecting—and I benefited from that.
The 1974–79 Government started off in the right direction with the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. My late husband was on the Standing Committee considering that Bill and, although he felt that it contained too many "as far as reasonably practicable" aspects, he was proud to have been associated with it. He was the Member for Keighley and hung on in 1979 with a majority of 78 votes, against most expectations, to be defeated in 1983 when the party received its lowest share of the vote since 1918, and constituency boundaries were radically changed. The present Government have already done many things that we can be proud of—particularly the introduction of the minimum wage legislation.
I look back with great pride on the parts played by my dad and my grandma in the early years of the ILP in Rossendale, particularly her work with the women's suffrage movement. I hope that in another 50 years my six grandchildren will approve of what we are doing now. One thing, however, is certain. I will always take great pleasure from the fact that I was one of the 101 women Labour Members who broke the gender mould of Parliament. Keir Hardie campaigned for women's suffrage and I am sure that he, too, would be delighted by our presence.
10.41 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Like others, I shall be as brief as possible, because this is an important debate in which many hon. Members wish to speak.
We should pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) not simply for introducing the debate, but for his far-sighted view of

11WH
socialism and his ability to transcend the understanding of the history of socialism and the needs of future generations and the present generation. I first heard him use his description of multinational corporations treating Britain as a colonial vassal state at a fringe meeting at the 1970 Labour party conference. His analysis of the defeat of the Labour Government of 1964–70 was markedly at odds with that offered by others who had lost ministerial positions. My right hon. Friend described the situation and our lack of power over multinational capital; others sought to blame the electorate.
My right hon. Friend also demonstrated the need for an understanding of history. The enthusiasm with which young people listen to what he says shows that history can be made interesting and exciting. If we do not understand where we come from historically, how on earth can we understand where we are going?
This Saturday, I shall visit Burford in Oxfordshire as part of a commemoration of the opposition of the Levellers to Cromwellian forces at the end of the English civil war. The Levellers said that they had no quarrel with the Irish and therefore were not prepared to be shipped across to Ireland to suppress them. Therefore, they rebelled and, for their pains, were imprisoned and shot in the churchyard. Cromwell was using robust methods at that time.
I want to take a stage further the sense of history that previous speakers have described—the struggle of the British working class, the development of the trade union movement and the impoverishment of the British people by the brutality of 19th-century capitalism—and to suggest that we consider those matters on a global level. At the start of the 21st century, we have unparalleled access to technology and information. It has never been easier to find out what is happening anywhere in the world. The technology is incredible. But why does the average time that people work in this country go up every year rather than down? Surely the genius of technology should be used to improve everybody's living standards, and reduce their tension and their average working week.
When I cycle here from the area in which I live, which takes about half an hour, it is with a sense of shame that I pass people who spent the night in shop doorways, are begging outside stations or spend their days wandering around the streets of London, hoping that someone will give them something to eat or something to do. None of that is necessary. The levels of wealth that exist in this country are obscene. I invite hon. Members, after we have finished our proceedings, to walk down to the back of the Savoy hotel, where they would see a couple of hundred people sleeping on the pavement. Inside the hotel, they would see people spending £50 per head on dinner. The obscenity of that kind of gap between the rich and the poor must be addressed.
On a global level, the situation is worse. A quarter of the world's population live on the brink of starvation, while half live a very poor existence. In many African countries, adult life expectancy is less than 50 years. In Russia, male life expectancy is currently falling to a similar level. In the coastal regions of Nigeria, the
12WH
exploitation of oil that has resulted from the harshness of the economic system has led to untold levels of brutality against the people.
I suspect that the real cause of the brutal conflicts in Sierra Leone and Liberia is the presence of diamonds and the wishes of those in the international diamond trade to get their hands on them. Such mineral exploitation has also led to environmental destruction in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, parts of Africa and large areas of Latin America. That will haunt us all, because there is no hiding place from global warming or from international and global pollution.
My message is simply this. If we are to ensure that the planet survives this century and those that follow, we must deal with the gap between the rich and the poor—which leads to conflict and warfare—and environmental destruction. We must also have a political system that ensures that those issues are addressed. The tragedy of the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century is that national Governments have lost a large amount of their power over economic management and economic thinking.
That power is not going to an international organisation with a democratic base, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield described the United Nations. Instead, it is going to a series of global corporations that owe no allegiance to any national Government or democratic base. We are told that the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF—an unholy trinity if ever I heard of one—know best, and that the most important goals for every poor country in the world are to cut public expenditure, and increase income from the public through taxation—and, in the case of most of Africa, school fees and charges—so that they can become part of the international global system.
A hundred years ago, the trade union movement recognised the importance of international solidarity. In Britain, the Netherlands, Germany and the United States, workers are losing their jobs. In Indonesia, Thailand and Bangladesh, workers are being told that they cannot have a wage increase, social security or a pension system because they will price themselves out of the market. The case for international labour standards is overwhelming. The ILO, which was established at the end of the first world war, provided a way forward. I look to a future in which it is more powerful and more able to impose minimal conditions to prevent the obscenity of child labour and the ghastly competition in so many parts of the world between the poor and the poorest.
In this country, socialism has had an enormous influence on the Labour party and on popular thinking. The national health service is a product of socialism. The campaigns against debt are a form of socialist thinking, as were the introduction and development of public sector housing and the national insurance and social security systems.
Society has to have a moral basis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield alluded to the influence of religious thinking, especially of Christianity, on socialist ideals. Socialism must also be a moral force that states that everyone deserves the right to a decent standard of living, to contribute to society and to benefit from the work of everyone else when they are sick or too old to work. That has to be the moral basis of society.

13WH
On a global level, the moral basis must be that we have no right to destroy the planet's environment, or to assume that our wealth can be created on the basis of the impoverishment of others in distant lands. We all live on one planet, and if it is to survive it must be run on a moral basis. The moral basis of the. greed of multinational corporations will lead not to the planet's survival, but to its destruction.
10.50 am
Mr. Alan Simpson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on securing this debate and on reminding us that it is legitimate and proper for us to address the question of socialism at a time when we are encouraged to assume that it died with the arrival of Margaret Thatcher.
My approach to the matter stems from childhood discussions in the family, which were not overtly political. I remember my uncle sharing his liking for music hall jokes with us. He frequently told one that everyone laughed at, but which I never really understood. It went: "I say, I say, I say. My dog doesn't like pork sausages." Someone else would ask, "Why doesn't your dog like pork sausages?" The response was: "Because he's never had them!" The danger in relation to a debate about socialism is that we have been told the same; that society would not like it, because we have never had it. My right hon. Friend rightly said that it is perfectly legitimate for us to aspire to systems we might like if we ever had them.
It is also to my right hon. Friend's credit that he suggested that we look for socialism in the births section of the public announcements, rather than in the deaths section. Inherent in the challenge that socialism presents is the presumption that markets cannot be trusted and that they are, by their nature, amoral, inequitable and undesirable. We ought to challenge the mythology of markets. In my constituency, a market of sorts exists in two of the inner-city areas. Turf wars are taking place between rival drug gangs, members of which are in the habit of shooting each other. Such activity is based on a market of despair and drug dependency. However, anyone who says that we should step back and not engage with that because it is all part of the magic of the market merely exposes the fact that markets have nothing to do with civilising processes in society.
Socialism sets out three challenges that offer a genuine alternative to the politics of despair and alienation. They are the notions of full employment, universal welfare and the legitimising of markets by redistribution. Redistribution in the market process is not an aberration or an unavoidable cost to the system. It is what gives markets their ethics.
I shall summarise the challenges that Keir Hardie might have wanted to set before us today, were he to revisit the debate. We must define a different sense of common ownership as the centrepiece of 21st-century politics. It might begin beyond our own shores. I was fortunate enough to meet some people who were involved in the world's largest co-operative—the Amul co-operative. It is based in India and comprises 18 million of the world's poorest people. Those people work together to meet not only their own dairy produce needs, but those of the whole of India. They took on the
14WH
wealth and might of the Nestlé corporation, which wanted to supply India with dried milk, responding to the challenges made by Gandhi and Nehru by supplying their own fresh dairy produce as a co-operative. If 18 million of the poorest people on the planet can get together to take on multinational capitalism, why has the debate about common ownership and co-operatism in this country sunk to the level of local exchange trading schemes and neighbourhood food co-operatives? We must think about common ownership and co-operatism on a larger scale.
We might consider too the example of the Gamin bank in Bangladesh. I was excited to read recently about popular banking services in New York, set up by people in the Catholic Church who were so appalled by the disappearance of access to banking services for the poor that they set up their own people's credit bank. Indeed, I was so excited about it that I ran to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. He said, "I am pleased that you are excited about that. I remember that I introduced the legislation to set up the Girobank, which was designed to do exactly the same for people in this country." As with so many inspiring ideas, I catch up with them only 20 or 30 years after my right hon. Friend has put them in place.
There are other cases, such as the blood transfusion service that we must also catch up with. Many people, including myself, "bank" with the blood transfusion service, but we never ask how much is in the account or about interest rates on offer. We just do it as a gift; assuming that, if we all do so freely, there will be enough in the common pot for everyone's needs. The Labour party should have the courage to revisit such schemes and understand their importance.
We are, in many ways, behind the times in the food security debate. In recent months, Parliament has debated the question of GM foods, as opposed to food sustainability and how we might return to agriculture, rather than agribusiness. Afterwards, I was collared by someone from the National Farmers Union who said. "Of course, we could deliver safe and sustainable food supplies to the major cities and, probably, meet most of that demand from our own domestic productive capacity—but you would have to force us to do things differently and to form food co-operatives." I thought that I must be drunk. What was the NFU doing, demanding the enforcement of the co-operative principle? When I asked why, I was told that, at the end of the war, Britain had made a mistake by setting up food product boards, whereas the French had required the creation of food co-operatives. This ensured that the rural food-producing hinterland as a whole could guarantee safe food supplies for cities in a way that individual farmers could not. If the NFU is championing the reintroduction of the co-operative principle, it should not be too radical or revolutionary for the parliamentary Labour party to follow suit.
We could also consider the model of common ownership offered by the Henry Doubleday seed library. Parliaments cave in to an internationalism that demands that we allow global patents on the earth's biodiversity. Only if corporations own such patents, they say, can we supply seeds to the developing world, allowing people to grow food and get out of poverty. Yet the Henry Doubleday seed library offers people seeds for free, so that they can he borrowed and returned and shared with

15WH
others. Ownership of the seed base is not the central issue. It is a question of how we propagate to broaden the base of biodiversity, on which we will all be dependent.
The central theme, which my right hon. Friend forces us to address, is that socialism will be the defining element of genuine political debate in the 21st century. It will be transformed, in ways that Keir Hardie did not understand, by Kyoto and beyond. Keir Hardie was keen on animals and the environment, but he would be horrified by our failure to address the need to bring about reductions of at least 60 per cent. in carbon emissions. We cannot leave such matters to the very markets which are responsible for the current chaos.
I hope that hon. Members and others will accept the invitation to go down the path that was tentatively and generously advanced by my right hon. Friend. In error, I thought that he had persuaded the Labour party to go down that path during the general election when I saw a huge poster emblazoned on a hoarding in the constituency in which I was campaigning. The poster consisted of a picture of the former international athlete Carl Lewis on the starting blocks in a pair of high-heeled shoes—he has good legs—above the slogan "Power is nothing without control". The question for the Labour party and the Labour Government is, although we are in power, to what extent are we in control? Are the public, who voted us in, in control of their economic destinies?
This is the most exciting agenda that Parliament will address and debate in the 21st century. I suspect that much needs to be done to catch up with those outside this place who have already begun the debate, but we owe a debt of gratitude—as ever—to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield for pushing us in that direction.
11.1 am
Mr. Steve Webb: I understand that it is customary to congratulate right hon. and hon. Members on securing Adjournment debates, but I shall break with tradition by thanking the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) for raising an issue that is as much about political philosophy as specific policy. In my short experience in this House, I have found that we have too little opportunity to participate in such debates. Those who have contributed to this morning's debate have brought vision, passion and principle—commodities that are also in short supply.
I do not know who should be most worried—other hon. Members who have spoken today, or me—by the fact that I have much in common with what I have heard this morning. I agree with many of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. For example, with regard to the power of multinationals, I am on the Euro-sceptic wing of the Liberal Democrats, which is probably not the most Euro-sceptic place to be. The one defence for active participation in Europe is that single nation states often cannot match multinationals and are in hock to them. On being elected to a minor body, one tends to think that, on election to the next step up, one will at last have power and influence. However, it suddenly becomes apparent that that is not how matters work.
16WH
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's diagnosis, and with a good deal of his concluding manifesto. The need to ensure the expansion of public services and their proper funding is at the heart of our own manifesto, which we are willing to back with a call for progressive taxation. I note that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) used the word "redistribution"—a word that I, too, am not afraid to put on the record. We believe in revitalising local government, and, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, local people should have greater control over how local taxes are spent. The civil liberties agenda is one with which we are associated, and for which we have been willing to stand up in this Parliament, despite the attitude of the popular media.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the need for a fairer tax system, and we see no reason why the top rate of tax should be 40 per cent. In the past, many of those who are now Ministers criticised the Lawson Budget of 1988, which reduced the top rate from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. However, now that they have the opportunity to do something about that cut, they have chosen not even partially to reverse it. That is regrettable.
Mention was also made of stronger environmental laws. I was intrigued to hear of the environmentalism of Keir Hardie, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point.
It makes sense briefly to identify two aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's analysis with which we in the Liberal Democrats do not entirely agree. It struck me that we may differ somewhat about the role of the state. I agree with him that real change comes from underneath, but I am not sure about the extent to which socialist values and ideals have been put into practice. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), who suggested that a socialist state may not yet have been established; there may be good reasons for that. The adjectives that spring to mind when I think about socialism are top-heavy, controlling, manipulative and coercive. That is why, in 1992, I chose to join the Liberal Democrats rather than the Labour party.
My second and perhaps more fundamental disagreement involves my belief that human nature consists of a desire to co-operate and an instinct to compete, which can be harnessed to benefit. As an example, let us examine the telecommunications industry. Although the right hon. Genman said that socialism is not the same as nationalisation, I presume that British Telecom's profits mean that he would be more comfortable with a publicly owned telecommunications industry.
During the 1970s, when BT had no competition, the industry was characterised by long waiting lists even to get a phone installed—hat appears prehistoric. The industry is now competitive and, in many respects, the choices and options that are available are much better and there have been social welfare benefits. I do not suggest that the private market does not need to be heavily regulated and, in some instances, the current regulatory system may not be severe enough. One misreads human nature if one believes that people's competitive instincts, as well as their instinct to cooperate, cannot be harnessed for benefit.

17WH
Although we support the idea of co-operation, our distinctive contribution to this debate involves echoing the right hon. Gentleman's key point that progress comes from underneath. We also believe that the state's role should enable and facilitate, but not control, those who are on the ground, and that harnessing the instinct of competition can be used to society's benefit, provided that it is properly regulated.
11.6 am
Mr. Howard Flight: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on securing this debate on political philosophy. Last week, when I was debating at the Cambridge union, I was greatly disappointed by the absence of an appreciation of political philosophy among young people.
As a relatively new boy in the House, I have observed the right hon. Member for Chesterfield to be a great parliamentarian—a man of great integrity, principle and clarity, and a great democratic patriot. I agree with many of his comments. I am grateful for the tribute that was paid to a strong element of the Conservative party, whose history reveals it to be sensibly collectivist.
The right hon. Gentleman and I share views about the European Union and the European currency. His speech on the reform of the House of Lords was the most persuasive of all hon. Members' contributions. I agree with him also about the need to revitalise local government and that the global economy, with which we have to live, needs a stronger United Nations and institutions of global regulation.
On a lighter note, the right hon. Gentleman and I are the two most notorious smokers in the House, and we may agree that smokers should not be excessively persecuted.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am an historian; I spent four years in my youth studying economic and social history. That background may have led me to support the other side of the argument. My grandfather, who was born 120 years ago, was a great campaigner with Keir Hardie. When I was growing up, we had discussions and debates about his life and times, and about the contemporary issues.
The capitalist process of creative destruction enabled the developed nations to achieve political democracy and higher living standards and to establish sensible collectivist organisations. Because they fail, other economic systems never raise people's living standards to a level at which they can achieve such things.
West Sussex is hardly the "dark satanic mills", but hon. Members may know that Blake lived at Felpham in West Sussex. The fulling-mill, which his house looked on to, led him to coin the phrase about the satanic mills, so it was a direct experience and not an observation on the evils of the industrialisation of his age.
There are two key points. The first is that, with the lack of discipline caused by the profit motive—ro even of the discipline to survive and make the necessary change—public bodies are inevitably inefficient and tend, if anything, to get worse over time rather than to deliver and adapt to the times. Secondly, the capitalist system self-evidently produces the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people. Even in our own age,
18WH
it is observable that the United States has created more prosperity for its people than the more socialist and less democratic systems of continental Europe. It is interesting that the last decade also showed not only that the United States can supply short to medium-term growth, but that equality of incomes has narrowed rather than widened; the dot.com millionaires are not the only ones to have benefited from the improvements.
I also accept that the capitalist system needs to be disciplined and controlled. The great prophet of the market, the late Enoch Powell, made the point forcibly when he said that the market should do its bit, but that it should be properly constrained and that the rules should be right. It is not a belief simply in unfettered markets. I share the view that means testing has gone too far in this country, producing much injustice and many undesirable behavioural reactions. I will even accept the famous phrase about the unacceptable face of capitalism; there are capitalist practices that are unacceptable and need to be prevented.
In addition to the efficiency argument, I also quote the Gladstone argument. Gladstone was wary of collective capitalism because he felt that it took away from people the duty to do good and to behave properly as citizens, and that it cast all responsibility on to the state. There is still much in that. I am a great supporter of the voluntary sector and believe that charity is a great achievement of Anglo-Saxon society. It seems to me that things are often done better by the private sector or the voluntary sector than by public sector bodies. My vision is of a nation where everyone has a decent ownership stake, not just in their houses but, ideally, in some of the businesses for which they work—a pot of private capital that gives them freedom and independence from the state.
I take some issue with the comments about the developing world and multinationals. I lived and worked in India in the 1970s and spent part of my early life studying India's history. Although it is a simplification, it strikes me that India suffered greatly from a closed socialist system after independence. At independence, its exports and its gross national product were much greater than those of Japan. If one compares the two 45 years later, India had been a terrible relative failure and Japan, warts and all, a substantial success. Indeed, India needs investment in technology and the know-how of multinationals. I was astonished to learn that, in the chemical industry in the late 1970s—even with minuscule labour costs by European standards—India could not compete internationally because its technology lagged so far behind. Like it or not, global contact is needed to keep the technology up.
I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield privately must be slightly unhappy with the present Administration because they hardly follow the socialist principles that he has supported. Surprisingly, during the Major Administration, inequality of wealth and of incomes decreased, but the gap has widened since 1996. The Government seem to woo rich business men and court the City. They seem to believe in co-operation at the top between Government and the capitalists who make things happen. I find that deeply suspect, as important conflicts of interest, which cannot be ducked, seem to arise in those areas. Capitalist business has its job to get on with as efficiently as it can. Governments exist to represent the nation. The conflict of interest

19WH
between them cannot be fudged. Whether housing or wider issues are involved, it is unhealthy to think that everyone can settle down and come up with the right solution.
The Government have used the spin of America's encouragement of entrepreneurship but, to my mind, they have found almost the worst of both worlds. The approach is so hedged that it does not work as it does in the States to boost growth and to create prosperity. Equally, however, principles with which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield will not agree are advocated. People in the poorer sections of society now spend 33 per cent. of their incomes on consumption taxes, whereas the figure is only 15 per cent. for the better-off. That state of affairs has arisen from the massive increase in consumption taxes in the past three years on petrol, drink and cigarettes.
It is not surprising that the growing army of pensioners, who have different patterns of consumption—a significant part of which is accounted for by the items I mentioned—and pay high council tax, which is increasing, were extremely disappointed with their modest pension increases.
I was a product of the way in which students were financed in the Macmillan era after the war. Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), I think that imposing tuition fees was a great mistake. It is almost the biggest stealth tax of the lot, affecting ordinary families who need to organise the financing of their children through higher education.
My observation is that the Government are the most elitist of my lifetime. They are driven by the priorities of the politically correct and the professional middle classes. They are sadly out of touch with the people who work at Rover and Dagenham, and with the growing body of pensioners. Most importantly, I hark back to the democratic issue. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield always puts proper democratic consultation first, whether in the context of reform of the House of Lords or what the country does economically. I fear that we are drifting too much to the European model by undemocratic processes, and towards the concept that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned of the elite at the top getting together because they know best. That will invariably bring about the wrong solution.
11.18 am
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for their wide-ranging contributions. I recognise the considerable role that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has played in the affairs of Parliament. I gather that this is his first debate in this new, modernised arrangement and I welcome him. I suspect that few hon. Members present would dispute that the previous Government's legacy was an increase in poverty and in income differentials in the United Kingdom.
I pay tribute to what my right hon. Friend said about Keir Hardie and remind him that Keir Hardie made four or five pledges in 1900 and 1901. At least two of those were for the reform of the House of Lords and the
20WH
introduction of a national minimum wage. Neither of those was carried out by the Labour party in government or indeed by anyone else over the ensuing century, until the present Labour Government, elected in 1997, achieved both.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that values are important. I would argue that the same or similar values drive us today as have always driven our party in government. On 8 May, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out in the James Meade lecture at the London School of Economics the Government's economic and social goals for the country. I will reiterate his main points because they relate directly to the debate. He set out the Government's five objectives: increased prosperity and higher productivity, employment opportunity for all, improving educational attainments, ending child poverty and improving public services.
The need for economic stability underpins all those objectives. Monetary and fiscal stability are a necessary precondition for national economic success. That is why the Government have introduced a new long-term framework for monetary and fiscal policy—a radically different monetary framework based on independence, openness and transparency. A number of hon. Members here support these notions. The Government have also introduced an important fiscal discipline with clear, open and consistent rules.
Hon. Members have mentioned the role of work. The importance of work in helping to tackle poverty must be borne in mind. All the evidence shows that work and the availability of work are vital in addressing poverty, particularly in the UK. Some—including, I think, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield—referred to the goal of full employment in their remarks. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor recently reiterated the relevance of full employment as a political and economic goal. Full employment now means full employment for both men and women. When the original goal of full employment was set out, it meant full male employment. The Government have a more ambitious goal—one that recognises the increased role of women in our society. I second the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) about the value of having 121 women Members in the House. We are both delighted to be counted among them.
The Government are building a new and modernised welfare state to increase work opportunities—a welfare state that, in addition to its traditional and necessary function of providing security to people who cannot work, promotes work, ensures that work pays and gives people the skills that they need to secure better jobs. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, in the past 20 years unemployment has been the primary cause of poverty in Britain. Compensating people for their poverty through benefits is not enough. Our task must be to deal with the causes of poverty, and the best form of welfare is work.
The UK has established a new leadership role in the various international forums promoting both multilateral and unilateral action to tackle third world debt. As a result, in part, of our initiative—and that of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development in particular—

21WH
there is a new emphasis on the reduction of poverty and on health and education programmes in the international forums in which these issues are debated.
We have also argued strongly for reformed financial architecture, which relates to the nature of the global system. We need to tackle the way in which financial systems and economies work on a global basis. We are doing that by developing and reforming financial institutions to enhance transparency. That involves strengthening financial regulation and the macroeconomic policies of financial systems in emerging markets. It is important to try to prevent crises from occurring, to manage them better when they evolve—that includes involving the private sector—and to promote social policies that protect the poor and the most vulnerable. There is plenty of evidence that the Government have been at the forefront of that process.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield touched on the nature of peace without social justice. He said that people come first—they certainly do for the Government. Our initiatives since 1997 have made society much less unequal. We will invest an extra £7 billion a year in children's financial support, almost 50 per cent. of which will go to the poorest 20 per cent. of families. A family with two children and a single earner on an average income will have become £2,600 a year better off in real terms between April 1997 and April 2001. About 1 million pensioners have been £20 a week better off since 1997. We have spent an additional £6.5 billion on pensioners in this Parliament. That is substantially more than would have been spent had the earnings link been restored. We have used the money differentially to help the poorest pensioners, which is in line with the wishes of some hon. Members who have spoken today.
We have also invested substantially more in our public services, including education and health. An extra £2 billion has been allocated for health care in 2000–01, which will produce an average real-terms growth of 6.1 per cent. over the next four years. That will
22WH
be the longest period of sustained high growth in the history of the national health service. The NHS is one of the Labour party's achievements in government. It continues to receive a huge amount of support.
We are tackling the gap between the rich and the poor in a variety of ways—some of which I have outlined—including the introduction of the working families tax credit, the reforms of the national insurance system, the introduction of the 10p starting rate for income tax and the national minimum wage. Before tax and benefits, the top fifth of households received an average income that was 17 times greater than the bottom fifth when we took office. The Government's involvement and intervention have reduced that ratio to 4:1. We have made substantial gains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley touched on the importance of child benefit. Between 1997 and 2001, child benefit for the family with one child will rise by £4.45, which is 26 per cent. above inflation for that period. Income support for each child under 11 in the poorest families was nearly £16.90 when we came to office; it is now £30.95—almost twice as much. The maximum financial support for a child under 11 in a low-paid working family will rise by £26.90, which is 97 per cent. above inflation.
Those achievements are part of the Government's proud record in tackling poverty. They address the issues raised by hon. Members today. Passion and principle are important, but they should be directed towards practical changes that are beneficial to people, both in the UK and across the globe, in their ordinary working lives. Our current approach to prosperity and fairness is right, as both must be secured. We must develop enterprise, as it enables us to generate employment, tackle poverty and invest in public services. That is why we are moving forward in the right direction. It is clear that the historic ambition—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. It is time for the next debate.

Economic Development (Isle of Wight)
11.30 am
Dr. Peter Brand: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), is here to respond, as I believe that he has responsibility for shipping, which is, of course, uniquely relevant to my constituency.
In recent months and years, I have led delegations to the Department of Trade and Industry and have met successive Ministers. The case for the Isle of Wight has been well made to the Department, but, unfortunately, there has been no response. I was disappointed that the Minister for Trade refused to meet a delegation. He obviously felt that we were becoming repetitive.
I shall try not to be repetitive, but I want to make a case for my constituency, which is a wonderful place. It is an excellent area to live in and can provide a great quality of life. I would like it also to be an excellent place to work. As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said in the previous debate, welfare, opportunity and the reduction of inequality are about jobs. The Isle of Wight still has one of the lowest gross domestic products in the country. It is the lowest in the south-east, at 74 per cent. of the European Union average, although that is a great improvement on the position a few years ago, when it was 64 per cent. of that average.
Through hard work and creative use of Government grants, the situation on the Isle of Wight has improved dramatically, but we have an extremely vulnerable base. We rely very much on agriculture, tourism and the care sector. There is also a little bit of manufacturing, although in the past two years we have lost 800 jobs manufacturing jobs as a result of the strength of the pound and the decisions of multinationals—another matter covered in the previous debate.
Employment is not only low, but fragile. Seasonal employment often means that twice as many people are unemployed in winter as in summer. The latest figures show that, among local authority areas, only Brighton's unemployment rate is higher than that in the Isle of Wight. We also have some of the lowest wages in the south-east and a high level of benefit dependency, which creates its own social exclusion, despite the fact that the island is such a splendid place to live. Indeed, when we try to explain our economic plight to Ministers who occasionally come to see the Isle of Wight, they ask us what we are worrying about. They say, "The sun is shining and everybody is smiling, so there can't be a problem." There are problems, however, as I am sure that the Minister will realise.
Restricted labour mobility is another problem on the island. The travel-to-work area and the constituency are effectively the same. One has to be extremely well off to afford a job on the mainland, as it costs £112 a month to commute on the ferry between Cowes and Southampton. That has created a population imbalance. We have above-average out-migration among 18 to 29-year-olds, while we retain and attract a higher proportion of retired people—27 per cent. It is great to have those retired people, but we firmly believe that we should have a mixed community of all ages, not depending only on the care sector.
24WH
I am not standing here to whinge on the island's behalf, which has been a tendency in the past. Living on an island is not just a geographical problem—it creates a mindset. The insularity argument and the cost of the ferries have often been used as excuses for not getting on with things. There has been a sea change, however, in the past few years. We have established a joint body—the island regeneration partnership, now called the island partnership—which brings together politicians at local government level. I am honoured to be a director of the board. It also includes the chamber of commerce, the training and enterprise council, business link, the voluntary sector—that is important—the Rural Development Commission, and representatives of the tourism, manufacturing and commercial sectors. The partnership approach has done extremely well for the island.
I am sure that the Minister will tell me how magnificently the island has been treated with regard to grants. We are grateful for the £10 million of single regeneration money that we have had. The rural development programme has been extremely imaginatively used, but we make a plea for more of the island to be included in that programme. There is an anomaly by which three of our small towns in the Sandown-Shanklin bay area are lumped together for analytical purposes and are therefore deemed to be urban rather than rural. Much business advice has been given, 17 new companies have been attracted and we have done well in the past few years, after a slow start, from intermediate assisted area status. Grants worth £5 million were attracted, levering in £20 million-worth of private money and creating or retaining about 1,000 jobs.
We have good and innovative employers on the island, not only in high-technology fields such as electronics and aerospace, but in exciting new developments in intelligent laminates, the production of wind turbine blades and related areas. There are great opportunities on the island.
I ask the Government to consider a basket of prospects. There is no magic solution. Had they stuck to their guns against the European statisticians, we would have qualified as an objective status NUTS2—nomenclature of units of territorial statistics—area. We were obviously disappointed about that. The European ombudsman has backed us on the issue but, unfortunately, we are probably too late.
We are also disappointed at being awarded tier 3 assisted area status. It sounded exciting at the start, but only £900,000 is available for the whole south-east, and grants are likely to go to areas receiving other grants. We heard biblical quotes in the previous debate, and it seems that to those who have shall be given, while those who get squeezed out shall find it difficult to plug into existing systems of support.
Tier 3 money should be made available to firms involved with the tourist industry and commerce, where there is growth. The improvement of the tourism product can do much to extend the season, to improve wages and to make jobs more secure. We would love to have tier 1 or tier 2 assisted area status, but we have missed the boat. The Government can do much by being

25WH
more flexible about tier 3. I hope that our single regeneration budget bid will be successful. It would do much to revitalise Ryde, one of our main coastal towns.
The RDP can support a wonderful range of projects, small and large, which have a tremendous effect on local people. Opening a little shop or factory somewhere does not cause a great economic surge, but the fact that such places exist has a tremendous effect on morale and improves the situation elsewhere. It would be helpful if funds were available for investment in building for industry and commerce. Land with planning permission is available, but we do not have the seed money to attract people who are offered ready-made and serviced premises in other areas of the country—indeed, abroad—with which we must compete.
Above all, I hope that the Government will support the regional development agencies. We strongly supported their establishment. They are a bit short on democratic accountability, but it is good to have a more collective area. In the past, we suffered from being lumped in with Hampshire, although it had no responsibility for our economic welfare, which was clearly nonsensical. We are now grouped with the southeast, and the south-east England development agency accepts responsibility for the economic welfare of predominantly coastal areas in the south-east where deprivation is on a par with that in the Isle of Wight. It will be disastrous for the Government's policy on development areas if they do not take note of the representations made by SEEDA. It will be disastrous if agencies do not have funds available to them, because flexibility to use funds would enable agencies to help—not just with advice but with real support—where investment opportunities exist in a particular area.
Another reason why I am so pleased that a DETR Minister is present today is because it would be splendid if the Government would recognise that there is an island factor. Because the Isle of Wight is the only English constituency that is an island, none of the Government formulae for distributing grants recognises that an island creates its own costs. Between them, the Isle of Wight ferries have a turnover of just over £50 million. That money comes out of an economy that serves 150,000 people, so it is an enormous burden. The ferries are effective and efficient, but they are extremely expensive. For the distance travelled, they are said to be the most expensive in the world.
The ferry companies were privatised one privatisation too soon. The railways and all sorts of other public services that have been privatised received large subsidies. The Scottish islands receive travel subsidies and Scottish road bridge tolls are subsidised by the Government. I am not suggesting that the Government should give money directly to ferry companies, because that would be a recipe for inefficiency and complacency, but it would be helpful if the Government were to allow local authorities to use their existing powers to subsidise travel. For example, we subsidise a chain ferry across the River Medina. It would be helpful if, as a result of our island status, some funding were available to enable the local council to subsidise the fares of jobseekers or people in training who have to cross the Solent. The fare is extremely expensive. An ordinary return fare for a car carrying two adults and two children costs £76.40 in low season and £90.80 at bank holiday weekends. That is a
26WH
stiff amount for the tourist industry to absorb, given that the Isle of Wight must compete with other areas that do not have that extra cost.
To allow the Minister plenty of time to respond, and so that I have time to ask clarifying questions, I end by quoting article 158 of the treaty of Amsterdam—bed-time reading for us all. It states:
In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Community shall develop and pursue its actions leading to a strengthening of its economic and social cohesion.
In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands.
That could have been written for the Isle of Wight. The Government have signed up to the treaty of Amsterdam but, to our enormous frustration, they do not seem prepared to take action to correct what many islanders feel to be an injustice. We are not asking for handouts; we want a little help to overcome a physical barrier that acts as a great financial disincentive.
The Isle of Wight is unique. We should stop moaning about its being an island; that is its unique selling point. However, we need some help to overcome some of the social deprivation that the island suffers.
11.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on securing this debate. As ever, he is most assiduous on behalf of his constituents on that beautiful island. It has been valuable and informative to hear from him. Some of the issues that he raised are unique to an island economy, but they also form part of the wider picture of the general management of the economy.
The Government's first priority on coming to office was to secure long-term economic stability and to leave behind the boom and bust of the late 1980s and early 1990s. During the past three years, we have been building a platform for economic stability. On that foundation, we are promoting competition, encouraging enterprise and innovation, raising the skills base, creating the right conditions for investment and improving public-sector productivity.
The hon. Gentleman is properly concerned about the economic development of the Isle of Wight. However, the island is part of the United Kingdom economy, and it is important to take a broader view to ensure that business, social and environmental needs transcend administrative boundaries—and, in this instance, a short stretch of water.
The rationale for setting up regional development agencies, which the hon. Gentleman supports, was that they would develop a strategy to support and enhance national policies, while addressing the particular needs of the regions. A framework for economic development, skills and regeneration will ensure a better strategic focus for, and co-ordination of, activity in the region, whether by the development agency or by other regional, sub-regional or local organisations. I understand that, in recognition of the island's particular needs, the South-East England development agency has set up an area office on the island. However, it is important that the island should be seen as an integral part of the region.

27WH
The arrangements for the new Small Business Service and the Learning Skills Council reflect the need to include the island as part of a larger area. That should bring benefits to the island and to Hampshire and the region. There will be benefits from economies of scale and from a more concentrated focus on the island. The new services will bring together all available business enterprise support. They will utilise the full range of skills experience available to organisations that share that vision. That should ensure universal access to consistently high-quality support services for all individuals and businesses on the island and throughout the wider area.
In the recent Budget, the Government announced a number of measures to stimulate competitiveness throughout the British economy, many of which should benefit businesses on the island. The Budget announced cuts in capital gains tax to create the most favourable environment that Britain has ever seen to encourage entrepreneurs. It will create an environment that will reward risk taking and promote wider share ownership among employees. It introduced permanent first-year capital allowances, to encourage investment, so that small and medium firms will be able plan their investments with certainty, knowing that they will receive the cash-flow help provided by first-year allowances.
The Budget also announced 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances for small enterprises investing in information technology equipment and a £60 million package to help more small firms to go online and to deliver more services online so that they can share in the opportunities offered by e-commerce. In addition, the Budget made provision for a new all-employee share ownership plan and enterprise management initiative, giving employee share ownership its biggest ever boost and helping small companies recruit and retain the key staff that they need in order to succeed.
Under the Budget, the research and development tax credit for small to medium enterprises has been increased from the present 100 per cent. relief on spending on research and development to 150 per cent. That will encourage SMEs to invest in R and D, and is available to companies not yet in profit, reducing the cash cost of their R and D by 24 per cent. compared with the present tax treatment.
Two further measures in the Budget should be of benefit to business in the Isle of Wight. First, tax relief is being introduced to promote corporate venturing, encouraging large and small companies to work together for their mutual benefit. Secondly, there will be an extra £100 million for a new £001 billion target umbrella fund for enterprise growth across the regions during the next three to five years, and a new fund for clusters to co-finance business incubators. RDAs will play a key role in both initiatives, and I mentioned earlier that SEEDA has already set up an office on the island in recognition of its specific needs.
In the south-east and London, an initial target of £250 million has been set for providing new venture capital; the national target is £450 million, for the development of clusters; and there is £10 million to boost information technology through continued
28WH
support of the information society initiative. Decisions have yet to be made about the continuance of the provision currently provided through the training and enterprise councils for economic development partnerships. I understand that it is likely that support will continue even though it might be on a reduced scale.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have carried out a comprehensive review of the assisted areas, taking into account responses to the consultation document issued last July. In order to carry out the review, a wide variety of criteria was proposed for determining the new assisted areas. I understand that labour market indicators, especially unemployment, received the most support. Additionally, wards were the most widely supported unit of geography to form the basis of the map.
The review of the assisted areas has been conducted under the European Commission guidelines on regional aid published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 10 March 1998. The aim of the guidelines is to introduce a transparent and comparable regional aid system across member states. They are part of the drive to reduce the overall level of aid to industry in the Community. The Government support that, and, following discussions with the Commission, are due to submit revised proposals for the assisted areas map. We shall take into account the Commission's concerns about population coverage and the geographical units used.
Regional industrial policy has a key role to play in the Government's commitment to creating a modern, competitive economy. It brings underutilised resources back into the economy, enhances employment opportunities and improves competitiveness. In the competition White Paper, the Government made two commitments on regional industrial policy. We said that we would support the policy of developing forward-looking regions in two ways: by focusing support on high-quality, knowledge-based projects, which provide skilled jobs, and by introducing a new assisted areas map, taking into account the response to the public consultation.
Dr. Brand: I am grateful to the Minister for telling us about the various measures that have improved the national economies. So far, however, he has said nothing about improving the welfare of the Isle of Wight, which continues to languish behind the rest of the country, and the rest of the region. I am disappointed that, in skating over the assisted areas status map, he has not acknowledged that the Isle of Wight has worse indicators—or better ones, depending on how one looks at them—than several areas that have been put on the map. Unemployment in Barking and Dagenham, for instance, is lower than it is on the Isle of Wight.
Mr. Hill: As they say, I was coming on to the issues about which the hon. Gentleman is, naturally, concerned.
In accordance with the guidelines, the Government are proposing four areas for assisted area status under the treaty—Cornwall, Merseyside, South Yorkshire and west Wales. Measured at purchasing power parities and averaged over the period 1994 to 1996, those areas had

29WH
a GDP per capita of less than 75 per cent. of the EU average, and are, under Eurostat's nomenclature of units for territorial statistics, NUTS2 areas. The regional aid guidelines allow higher maximum grant levels in those areas. In drawing up the proposals, the Government aimed to combine areas of need with major opportunities for employment creation, investment and regeneration. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the consultation period is now closed. The Government will consider the representations carefully and, in the light of those considerations and discussions with the Commission, seek approval of the new assisted areas map.
The Government have introduced plans in England for a new third tier of enterprise grant areas under which assistance will be available to businesses employing up to 250 people. The Isle of Wight will qualify for that grant. Small businesses have a crucial role to play in regional development and in tackling need. The introduction of the enterprise grant areas, which will extend outside tiers 1 and 2, complements the measures to support and encourage the development of small businesses that have already been announced—namely, the establishment of the Small Business Service and the creation of the enterprise fund.
I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern that the third tier will not be sufficient for the needs of the Isle of Wight. However, it is intended to be a flexible measure to aid regional development and respond to local economic difficulties. Therefore, after an initial period of 12 months, the areas will be reviewed in conjunction with regional partners, including the RDAs.
The inclusion of the Isle of Wight in the new third tier of enterprise grant is a recognition of the needs of the island and the role that can be played by support for small and medium enterprises. The island's request to be included in the new map for assisted areas is currently
30WH
with the European Union, and we are awaiting its decision. The Government are prepared to provided positive support, provided that it is not at the expense of other areas in the south-east.
Transport is a key issue for the Isle of Wight: its cross-Solent links are vital to its economic and social well-being. However, the fare levels are a commercial matter to be determined by the operating companies. In 1995, the Office of Fair Trading carried out a review and found out that fares had increased overall by less than the rate of inflation. Although the Government recognise that ferries provide the only realistic public access to and from the island, services are able to operate on a fully commercial basis, and we take the view that a subsidy is not justified. That is demonstrated by the ferry companies' arrangements with tourist service providers and other regular users who benefit from special rates. However, the Government accept, in the context of our social inclusion agenda, that the cost of getting to the mainland could prevent some people from taking advantage of improvement opportunities. We are therefore willing to encourage initiatives that help such groups through specific targeting. I hope that that offer will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman.
Finally, I turn to rural development. The island benefits from several other initiatives, such as rural priority areas, which provide eligibility for a variety of grant aid for supporting industrial development and similar projects. Those initiatives are valued by the island's community. I understand that SEEDA, on behalf of the island, has undertaken discussions with the Government Office for the South East and my Department about proposed amendments to the boundaries. The case has yet to be made, so it is too early to comment.
I am sure that hon. Members are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised the important matter of the economic development of the Isle of Wight.

Teesside Chemical Industry
11.58 am
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I am extremely pleased to be able to speak on behalf of my constituents in the communities that are dependent on the well-being of Teesside and its chemical industry. Teesside has a unique position as a centre for chemical production, engineering and innovation.
Before I entered the House, I was a practising chemical engineer in industry and a member of the Institution of Chemical Engineers. I am currently a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and secretary of the all-party chemical industry group.
The chemical industry is one of the key catalysts of wealth creation for our country in this century. I want to highlight a number of distinct but interlinking issues: changes in the Teesside chemical industry, its present state, how it can adapt to the business needs of today's global market, and how cluster designation can better encourage innovation and help to create a new business ethos and operating philosophy. However, those issues must be put in context.
The Teesside chemical industry is not a dying smokestack industry. The clothes that we wear, the food that we eat and the materials that furnish our homes, workplaces and cars are products of the chemical industry. In fact, many of the fixtures and fittings in this Room are chemical industry products. The chemical industry is the building block for pharmaceuticals, paints, coatings and advanced materials used in the motor industry and aerospace industry. It is an industry of the future.
We cannot envisage the applications of, and the products that will be developed through, maturing biotechnology, nanotechnology and genetic technology. However, we know that they will be earth shattering and will profoundly affect the world in which our children and grandchildren will live. Research is being undertaken on "intelligent materials" with industrial and medical applications, and on molecular technology.
Although Teesside is surrounded by a skyline consisting of distillation towers, catalytic converters and tank farms, the age of bulk processing may last only another decade or two. Dramatic changes, many of which were unimaginable just a few years ago, have reshaped the Teesside chemical industry. The industry has emerged from a past dominated by a single employer—ICI—into a new pattern of ownership and control. Plants on Teesside are now owned not by a single employer, but many large corporations, for which Teesside represents their largest UK stake.
Teesside is home to some of the world's largest chemical players: ICI, Dupont, Enron, BP, Amoco, Union Carbide, Terra and Huntsman, among others. Their presence underpins the industry's importance to Teesside in terms of finance and employment. At present, 11,000 people are directly employed by the industry, and 25,000 indirectly employed. They contribute to an annual cash turnover of between £3.5 billion and £4 billion, which sustains many more thousands of jobs and defines the social pattern of the towns of Teesside.
32WH
The new world players are investing in our future. Teesside's new chemical industry will be as much concerned with small-scale batches of fine chemicals as with processing millions of tonnes of hydrocarbons. It will be a high-value-added industry, which will rely far more on the scientific and technological knowledge and expertise of its work force than the capital asset register of large-scale plants.
As recently as last week, the Minister assured us that the Government's interest in the manufacturing sector is genuine, and that they are committed to ensuring growth and innovation. I hope that that remains the case. Central to that commitment is the need to ensure that this country can win out in respect of high-quality goods and services, and skills and reliability. Of course, that cannot be delivered by the Government, or the private sector, alone. There must be a structured partnership that involves all key players—the Government, academia, the network of regional development agencies and the industry.
We on Teesside are well on our way to forming those partnerships. The chemical industry has led the way by setting up the Teesside chemical initiative, a group consisting of the major industrial players and supporting agencies. The initiative gained national recognition and has conducted many studies for the Department of Trade and Industry. I am told that the Department is using one of its reports as a benchmark for the industry's future. A critical part of that benchmarking process involves analysing the way in which Teesside chemical companies manage their human resource potential. Nowhere is that more important than in the chemical industry. To put the matter simply, the industry is becoming much more people-oriented—it values its work force and undertakes programmes for up-skilling and lifelong training. The work force's knowledge and technology skills will become more important than they are or have been.
New entrants to the industry will work in a global environment. They will be the mobile ambassadors for new technologies and new processes. The increasing reliance on human capital means that a young chemical process engineer may spend part of his or her career in Turin, Turku or Tulsa, although Teesside still is one of the industry's great centres, and it is essential that it remains so.
The infrastructure of the Teesside chemical industry consists of several crucial features, which contribute to the industry's character and strengths and which make an essential case for a new cluster. Teesside has a direct supply of North sea gas feedstocks; a major effluent-treatment facility that makes it one of the cleanest complexes in western Europe—that is demonstrated by the fact that, if one looks into the River Tees, one can see salmon and seals; a direct link to the ethylene pipeline network; a well developed logistic capacity, including a deep-water port whose operators have experience of handling many different chemicals and chemical products; the best water supply in the United Kingdom, which is based on the largest man-made reservoir in western Europe; a good supply of new sites for the industry that are already hooked into services and capable of producing cost and time savings for incoming producers; a mature support network of suppliers, process engineers, specialist services and a public and

33WH
professional sector that is used to dealing with the chemical industry; and, above all, a skilled, fully trained and adaptable work force. For those reasons, Teesside is well poised to benefit from the structural changes that are occurring in the chemical industry.
Some may regret the loss of ICI's historical dominance, but the fact that all of the world's major companies have functioning plants on Teesside means that the area will become increasingly important in the eyes of those companies' decision makers. Teesside has the firms, a skilled work force and the tremendous physical assets of a network of research and development institutions and the university of Teesside. That is not to suggest that we have no weaknesses. Although major companies are present, their operations are international, and only limited decision making takes place on Teesside. Also, many of the older sites have a poor physical environment.
The continued strength of the pound is still an issue for companies that are based in and trade with the European Community. However, where there are threats, there are also opportunities. They are: the opportunity to market the Teesside area as a focus for the chemical industry's growth and diversification; the opportunity to restructure the grant mechanisms that are currently on offer from local and central Government, which should make capital investment easier; the opportunity to build links between the various research and development units and, crucially, to ensure the future of the Wilton centre for research and development under the new pattern of dispersed ownership; the opportunity to identify and plug future skill shortages; the opportunity to begin an action-oriented research programme to establish the needs of small and medium chemical enterprises that may be attracted to Teesside; the opportunity to further the programme for site clearance and development on former bulk chemical sites; the opportunity to press for the building of another olefin complex to exploit feedstock strengths; and the opportunity to develop the network of feedstock pipelines from the North sea and, potentially, from mainland Europe. It is an ambitious programme, but an essential one if the industry on Teesside is to continue to display the vigour and spirit of innovation that have characterised it over the past 90 years.
Perhaps the key issue that a designated cluster can influence is the need to ensure a good research and development base. Earlier I mentioned the Wilton research and technical centre. It was established in the mid-1970s by ICI, under the direction of the charismatic John Harvey Jones, to establish a research and development base for all the activities that it managed on Teesside. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor visited the centre about 10 years ago when I was a parliamentary candidate, so he is fully aware of it.
In the new pattern of ownership there is a danger that that unit, which brings together the biggest concentration of scientists and engineers with PhDs in the United Kingdom, could atrophy. That could lead to the human talent and potential housed in that complex moving to fresh pastures in other parts of the UK, and indeed to other parts of the world. No one wants that to happen, and a key issue for any new cluster must be to boost the Wilton centre as a core research and development unit serving all the partners in the cluster.
34WH
A group made up of the European process industries competitiveness centre, Redcar and Cleveland borough council, the Teesside chemical initiative, the Tees Valley development company and the north-east regional development agency is developing those plans. This agenda fits well with the views of the Science and Technology Committee, which were debated last week in this Chamber. Its second report dealt with innovation based on engineering and science.
For a cluster to flower, companies must be dedicated to the concepts of partnership, financial access, a business incubator and academic input, and they must have sympathetic local planning and development support. The Select Committee highlighted the cluster of medical device manufacturers sited in and around the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus. MIT's active involvement made the crucial difference. What was once a simple agglomeration of companies has become a formal cluster. Called Massmedic, this group combined to develop its own products. Critically, it has helped to influence state and federal policy and build effective relationships with other academic institutions and teaching hospitals. I believe that the physical assets that the Select Committee cited and observed in Boston exist on Teesside.
I am also grateful to the Royal Society of Chemistry for drawing my attention to the report on international catalysis clusters, which links a variety of interested organisations—ICI, Johnson Matthey, Solway, BP Chemicals and Shell Chemicals. Many academics are also involved in setting up clusters, another example of the way in which things can be done.
The Minister was very positive last week about the Select Committee report. I know that the Government want to promote technology clusters, but, as the report stressed, they cannot create them: the building blocks must be there. I believe that the building blocks exist on Teesside—good academic support, a network of skilled technologists, many of whom have known one another for many years and have worked on previous collaborations, and an open and responsive planning system based on good working relationships with the industry over many years. Although I am asking the Government formally to designate cluster status for the Teesside chemical industry, that simply recognises what is already in being. Such designation would make the Teesside chemical industry the motor force in the north-east's regional and economic strategy.
The Government's response to the Select Committee report acknowledged that Lord Sainsbury would oversee a cluster steering group. I ask that group to use the Teesside chemical industry cluster as its first case study. It will find much to encourage it. It will find that the cluster will succeed; it will be marked by good relationships between the key players, local managers and agencies; it will be marked by collaborative action to tackle common problems; it will be marked by a common desire to move up the knowledge-based industry league table; it will recognise the need to place R and D at its core, for the common good of the industry and the community; and it will be marked by a common enthusiasm to improve human potential within the industry.
In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor talked about Britain's need to
succeed in the new economy and to lead in the new century—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 173.]

35WH
Change is sweeping across Teesside and it is crucial that we benchmark our strengths, analyse our weaknesses dispassionately and identify and capitalise on our opportunities. Formal designation of cluster status for the Teesside chemical industry will be a crucial weapon for ensuring that the industry helps the north-east and its economy to prosper and helps Britain to succeed.
12.15 pm
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on securing a debate on a subject that is important not only to Teesside and the north-east, but to the whole country, as he rightly said. As on so many previous occasions, he spoke with a deep personal knowledge of the industry in which he served with such great distinction for many years. I am happy to endorse what he said about the importance of manufacturing industry, in general, and about the chemicals industry, in particular.
The chemicals industry is our second largest manufacturing sector. It represents more than 10 per cent. of manufacturing gross value added; it has a turnover of £46 billion; and it employs 250,000 people directly and many times that number indirectly. It contributes £23 billion to our export earnings.
There is, however, more to the industry than its sheer size. Quality is as much a part of it as quantity. The chemicals sector has formed the bedrock of the United Kingdom's traditional manufacturing base for many generations. However, as my hon. Friend has said, it is not a dying smokestack or sunset industry. It is a modern, highly skilled, innovative, technology-based and research and development-intensive sector.
The phrase so often used today—the new economy—is, increasingly, misleading, in terms of what is happening in the United Kingdom and in the global economy. The phrase implies that there is also an old economy, and that manufacturing is irredeemably part of that old economy, destined to decline and die. That is nonsense, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will stress in his speech to the Confederation of British Industry this evening.
New technologies in materials, in chemistry and in information and communications are transforming every sector. They are transforming every part of the production process and the provision of all goods and services. The chemicals industry, which is a fundamentally science-based industry, is meeting enormous environmental challenges by investing in new production processes and products. The industry is part of the knowledge-driven economy. It is and, with the right support, will continue to be a central part of the high-tech manufacturing base that we need if we are to be among the leaders in the 21st century's global knowledge-driven economy.
Government and the public sector have a role to play. We do not run or own the industry, but we can play a part in creating not only the right macro-economic conditions—the stability that the sector, like all others, requires—but the right education and training regime, a
36WH
supportive framework for scientific and technological advance and a balanced regulatory environment. We take those responsibilities seriously. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe has a regular dialogue with the chemicals industry, so that we can work together on the issues that most affect the sector, many of which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East eloquently outlined this morning. As part of that process, my right hon. Friend will visit the chemicals community on Teesside on 15 June and I shall ensure that this debate is brought to her attention before that visit.
There is also a challenge for the industry constantly to improve and upgrade itself and to make the necessary investments to remain a world-class, competitive and highly productive sector.
My hon. Friend referred to the importance of building on the cluster of chemicals industries on Teesside. We are not discussing a new or even an emerging cluster; it is well established. As part of the preparation for this debate I took the opportunity of looking at the map of chemicals manufacturing and storage sites on Teesside and it is clear that there is a well-established and dense cluster there. As my hon. Friend said, an important part of the process of building on the existing cluster is the Teesside chemicals initiative, which offers a mechanism whereby the private sector, the public sector and some not-for-profit institutions can come together to take collective action to create the conditions that individual companies need to succeed—skills, maintenance, logistics, upgrading the quality of sites, links with higher education and research institutions, relationships with local communities, disseminating and sharing best practice, and promoting new inward investment by chemicals companies into the area.
My hon. Friend spoke realistically about the challenges that face the members of that cluster, as well as their strengths, which they want to exploit. My Department and the Government Office for the North East are working closely with the Teesside chemicals initiative and with the regional development agency, One North East, to achieve the aim of developing Teesside as an international centre of excellence in chemicals production.
My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury, the Minister for Science, is chairing a steering group on clusters policy to assess how we can more effectively build and develop clusters throughout the United Kingdom. That group will help us to identify and recommend new policy initiatives to ensure the sustainable development of clusters and industrial networks. I shall ensure that his work is informed by the Teesside experience and what my hon. Friend said.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 27 March a £50 million package to provide support for the development of business clusters in the English regions. That is in addition to the funding that has already been announced for the general strategic work and goals of the RDAs. That capital fund is available to the agencies to facilitate the establishment of innovative sectoral and geographical networks to support industrial excellence.

37WH
I am very pleased that the Teesside chemicals initiative is talking to One North East about how that new resource can be applied to the chemicals companies and industry cluster in the north-east. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to support Teesside in maintaining and strengthening its place as a world-class chemicals industry cluster.
My hon. Friend said, rightly, that most successful clusters have a strong academic partnership, as well as strong industrial companies. In the chemicals sector, the application of leading-edge science and technology will be crucial, and my hon. Friend rightly made a powerful plea for the development of the former ICI research and development facility at Wilton. That world-class centre offers valuable work and services to chemicals companies, not just on Teesside but further afield. We support the current review by the RDA, with other partners, to consider how the centre's future might be shaped and how its work could be strengthened as part of that cluster development.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we are consulting on the possibility of creating regional centres for manufacturing excellence. We are talking to the RDAs and to trade associations in the chemical sector about how regional centres of excellence might support chemicals firms. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, want the interests and expertise of the Wilton centre to be reflected in that consultation and in any initiative suggested along those lines. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe visits Teesside next month, she will want to discuss the Wilton centre as well as the broader industry.
My hon. Friend rightly stressed the increasing importance of people to the industry's future competitiveness. It is increasingly true that almost all manufacturing industry is a people business; it is not simply about science, hardware and products. As a chemical engineer by profession, my hon. Friend is better placed than most to understand the chemical industry's skills and training needs. The Government share his concern to ensure that we have the right skills,
38WH
and the education and training infrastructure necessary to keep supplying those skills, to ensure the continuing growth and innovative development of the industry.
Nationally, we work closely with the industry and the Department for Education and Employment. At the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, the Government have formed a working group; with the industry and the trade unions, we can examine the key constraints on the development of the chemicals industry and recommend sensible future courses of action. Again, I invite my hon. Friend to contribute practical suggestions to that group.
Locally, the Teesside chemical initiative has been particularly active on the skills front. With support from the Department of Trade and Industry, it has undertaken specific initiatives on behalf of the local chemicals industry in developing ideas for degree programmes that more closely reflect the needs of local industry. Chemistry degrees will thus not only provide the right sort of scientific education, taking account of the practical needs of the industry as well as the excitement of the research laboratory. They will also complement that scientific excellence with an awareness of business and commercial realities and the skills needed to operate in a commercial environment. The chemicals initiative has also helped to deal with skills shortages among the contractors who maintain and overhaul the chemical plants.
My hon. Friend has rightly stressed the strengths of the chemicals industry on Teesside, and the challenges that face it. He has highlighted the concerns of his constituents, and the challenges and opportunities that face the industry in which so many of them are employed. I hope that I have been able to reassure him, during this relatively short debate, that we share his commitment to a world-class knowledge-based chemicals industry, and that we are already working closely with the industry and the people who work in it to ensure that the potential of that important sector is realised, particularly on Teesside.

Rail Accident (Goss Moor, Cornwall)
12.28 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this subject. A serious and potentially fatal accident occurred on 8 May on the rail-road crossing at Goss moor, involving a car transporter and a local train to Newquay. The accident raises questions about level crossings without barriers, but I take this opportunity to raise the much wider—and in the long run, more serious—matter of the A30 at Goss moor, especially the low rail bridge, which was why that heavy car transporter was on a small country lane.
I know the lane well, and I can see the Goss moor section of the A30 from my kitchen window. I see the regular jams that occur on the road during the summer, which go from pretty terrible to absolutely awful when lorries manage to hit the low bridge, which happens fairly regularly. Last summer, when large numbers of cars started more or less coming past my cottage, I discovered that somebody, in the spirit of Cornish entrepreneurship, had found that a lot of money could be made by selling for £1 maps showing how to get round the A30 at Goss moor. I do not want to talk unduly about taking away the opportunity to increase Cornish incomes, as they are so low, but the sale of such maps is not the ideal way of making a living, not least because people in the surrounding villages become irate when they see not just tall heavy lorries but everybody else using the route as a rat run to avoid the problems on the Goss moor section of the A30.
I have spoken about the barrier issue many times in the past, not least when I was transport spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. We must all be anxious about railway crossings without gates, which are especially dangerous when there is substantial traffic. A hot and bothered lorry driver who is not in the best state of mind but who is forced to use minor routes might not take the sensible driving approach that is appropriate to small country lanes. People in Roche tell me that lorries often pass rather too quickly through their village. My experience on the lanes outside the villages is similar. I cycle on the route from time to time, when I have the opportunity to do so, and I see lorries that are using entirely inappropriate roads, either at the end of a long journey or just setting off on a long journey out of the county, which appear, from time to time at least, to be going rather too fast for the circumstances.
We do not know what happened in the accident, and I do not want to pre-empt the inquiries. It seems to me, however, that road and rail do not mix well and that the light barriers do not always work. We know about the record of accidents and fatalities that occur from time to time on unbarriered crossings throughout the country. The individual who lives in the house next door to the crossing in question moved there only six weeks ago. He says that he has seen many near misses in which people shot the lights but narrowly missed a collision. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to speak about policy on the matter. I am aware of the recommendations made by the previous inquiry into barriers. I know that they were broadly implemented, which was welcome, but, in this day and age, there remains a question mark over unbarriered rail crossings.
40WH
The A30 at Goss moor is the spine route through Cornwall; the great majority of traffic coming in and out of the west of the county has to take it. Most of the route is either at dual-carriageway standard or near to it. With the exception of one minor section on Bodmin moor, all of it is dualled as far as Bodmin. That is due not least to the campaigning in which people in my part of the world have engaged over many years to ensure an adequate route into the county and out again, which is especially important for Cornish businesses. A further section of dualling runs from Indian Queens to the junction off to Truro, whose construction was welcome. That development was originally planned to include the Goss moor section, but, for a variety of reasons, Goss moor was not included in the Indian Queens-Summercourt bypass building process.
I have had many meeting over the years with Ministers and others to discuss Goss moor. In my judgment, it was always the case that the best solution for the A30 problem at Goss moor involved moving the rail link to Newquay from the Par junction to St. Austell. The rail track would have gone through St. Bernards, so removing the need for the iron bridge and the diversion of heavy lorries. The solution tackled the problems of improving the road across Goss moor which, as a site of special scientific interest, is an important environmental site that is likely to receive the highest European nature conservation status.
There would be two benefits from moving the railway. The first is that it would free up the rail track bed for road building. As it runs parallel to the A30, that would allow dualling to take place without encroaching too much on Goss moor. The second is that Goss moor could be extended into a sterilised area between the railway and the improved road. Diverting the branch line would more than make up for losses to Goss moor that result from road improvements.
The environmental impact fits in with Government policy to find solutions to transport problems that combine public transport and road transport. The branch line would be made more viable by linking Newquay with St. Austell, which is Cornwall's largest town, rather than with the small village of Par. Indeed, its station does not even serve most of its built-up community. More people would get out of their cars and on to trains, which would reduce the cost of subsiding the branch line in the long term. It would solve most of the problems of land take from Goss moor that would be caused by dualling or upgrading. It would also provide a solution to the low iron bridge problem without incurring the substantial costs that make alterations to the bridge unviable.
The project's history is long and sad. Governments have repeatedly started to advance the process only for it come to a halt, which is why my colleagues and I have had an infinite number of meetings with Ministers over the years. In the old days—I suspect that this was also the case in recent years—the barriers within the Department between the rail people and the road people created a fundamental problem. When rail and roads were in state hands at the Department of Transport, it was well known that the highways people did not want to pay for the rail re-routing. They hoped that the branch line would close and that they would get it for free. The rail people, however, could not justify the investment for re-routing the line, so no money changed

41WH
hands. Although I was told that re-routing was the cheapest solution for the road builders, they did not want to pass the financial gains on to Railtrack.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I endorse my hon. Friend's point about co-ordination. I had the same experience, albeit for a shorter time. When we went to see the present Minister, Lord Whitty, at the Department, it was a shock to discover that the Department had not realised the importance of the new factor—the creation of the Eden project. My hon. Friend will know that the Eden project opened—
Madam Deputy Speaker(Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has the permission of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and the Minister to intervene, but his contribution should be brief.
Mr. Taylor: I am sure my hon. Friend has made his point. The opening of the Eden project means that traffic pressure, especially at the junction of the Bodmin roundabout on the A30, will be increased. The traffic tailback at that junction is often severe.
Let me sum up the issues for the A30. First, a combined rail and road solution would quickly end once and for all the diversion of heavy traffic through inappropriate local lanes and villages. The rail diversion would allow the removal of the bridge while a road upgrade of whatever form was taking place. That is an immediate solution for villagers in the surrounding area and for firms that find that further unnecessary delays and difficulties are added to getting their goods in and out of the county.
Secondly, a combined solution would answer genuine environmental concerns—there would be a clear net environmental benefit for Goss moor and, crucially, in the use of public transport. The proposal would help to get more people on to trains and would serve much larger communities than the existing branch line does. People would be taken to where they wanted to go rather than to Par, which, frankly, the majority of people do not plan as their final destination or have as their starting point.
We would also be able to tackle congestion, the environmental issue and the loss of life on that section of the A30, which is perhaps the most important issue of all. The county council has done much work on the subject. The figures over the past five years show accidents across Goss moor at twice the national rate. In that period, there were five fatalities, 19 serious injuries and 201 injury accidents—high figures for a short section of road. As a local, I experience the problems of crossing the A30, especially when coming from Roche and heading for the Newquay side, where there is a nasty junction. The Minister nods; I understand from his office that he knows the section of road well. The problems that I am describing will be familiar to him.
The history of the matter has been sorry and the sorriest saga has come within the past 10 years. In February 1994, the so-called fast-track, round-table process for trying to find agreement on a solution within the community was trialled by the then Conservative Government. The move was welcomed in the community. Environmental, road and community
42WH
interests were brought together successfully. Perhaps surprisingly, given that environmental concerns did not have the same priority then as now, there was overwhelming agreement that the section of road needed to be tackled and that the preferred solution was to link rail and road, as I have suggested. The planning process for the road ensued, with the county council taken on as the lead contractors.
Matters came to a grinding halt shortly afterwards because the then Government slashed the roads programme. They were not interested in rail investment, so there was no hope of help from them on that. With the abolition of the county contract, no work proceeded. There was an announcement, which held out hopes, that there might have been a resumption shortly before the general election, but I do not think that that was anything other than a political gesture. Perhaps I am just an old cynic.
Worse news came on the election of the Labour Government because they, understandably, put the road programme back under review. That led to a further delay of at least one year, despite the fact that the round table had shown overwhelming support in the community for a solution. Even interests such as English Nature bought into the principle that a solution needed to be found, even if those interests did not commit themselves to an option. English Nature itself was sympathetic to a link to rail improvement. Sadly, the outcome of the review was not building but further consultation and planning. That was welcome but there was frustration in my community. The people there say, "We do not know why there is consultation because we all agree that work needs doing. A great majority of people agree on the way in which to do it. For goodness sake, can't we just get on with it?"
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell on securing the debate so soon after the accident on 8 May. As the hon. Gentleman said, the accident took place close to the A30 trunk road on Goss moor where a project is currently being carried out to identify ways of improving that part of the A30. The A30 project is of great importance to the people of Cornwall.
The accident took place on Monday 8 May, just after midday. A Wales and West train service travelling from Par to Newquay collided with a car transporter at the Tregoss level crossing near the village of Roche. The transporter had left the A30 to avoid the low Goss moor railway bridge, it having activated the height warning system. The accident caused the transporter to be dragged along the track for thirty yards and several of the cars it was carrying were scattered into nearby hedges. The train and lorry drivers and two passengers were taken to hospital with minor injuries. Thankfully, the injuries were not more serious.
An inspector from Her Majesty's railway inspectorate visited the scene of the accident the same day and started an investigation into the causes of the accident with the British Transport police. Their initial findings show that the crossing was working correctly. Tests have been carried out to confirm their early findings and the results

43WH
are awaited. The Crown Prosecution Service and the British Transport police will consider the investigation's conclusions to determine what action should be taken. The investigation will also assess whether that type of crossing is still appropriate for the road and rail traffic that use it. The level crossing is a locally monitored automatic open crossing controlled by a signal box.
An improvement notice was served on Railtrack in February 1997 relating to the road markings at the crossing. Remedial action was taken to restore the road markings and, at the time of the accident, they were in accordance with the relevant statutory order for the crossing.
Some press reports have suggested that this was the fifth accident involving trains at that location in the past 10 years. In fact, there have been no previous accidents involving trains over the past 10 years. I have noted the observation of the resident who lives close to the crossing about near accidents, which is important and interesting.
Mr. Taylor rose—
Mr. Hill: I will give way although I have much to say and little time in which to say it.
Mr. Taylor: I think that the Western Morning News bears some responsibility for that statistic. I believe that it has confused a specific figure with a figure for the south-west on these crossings.
Mr. Hill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It is unusual for that excellent journal to make a mistake.
Rail safety is vital and the Government are determined to make the railways and rail travel safer. The opening last week of the public inquiry under Lord Cullen into the Ladbroke Grove crash reminds us in the starkest manner of what can happen when an accident occurs. The Government will work to improve safety systems and procedures and to ensure that safety has the highest priority in the rail industry. Lord Cullen has been asked to conduct a thorough investigation not only into the causes of the Ladbroke Grove crash, but also into the long-term implications for rail regulation. In the meantime, wherever possible, the Government are taking practical action to improve safety.
The A30 trunk road between Bodmin and Indian Queens, is a stretch of road that, as the hon. Member for Truro and St Austell says, I know well because of my annual pilgrimage to the Pentire peninsular for the surfing. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Highways Agency and its consultants are working to find a solution that would overcome the safety and congestion problems on that section of the trunk road. An important element of the work is to understand the problems clearly and how they affect local people and the south-west region overall.
The Highways Agency has carried out the first stage of a two stage public consultation. The consultation has caused some impatience among interested parties because, they assert, the problems have been known for years and the answers are obvious. There was indeed, as
44WH
the hon. Gentleman said, a local planning conference in 1994, but since then, progress on preparation has been subject to fits and starts, culminating in the announcement in 1998, when we published the report "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", that the scheme should progress without delay, subject to full appraisal and the views of the regional planning conference. However, I emphasise that the 1994 local planning conference was not a substitute for public consultation, as is required by law, so there has always been a need for the current stage. Moreover, given the four-year suspension of preparation between 1994 and 1998, and subsequent changes in transport policy, it is important that earlier work should be reviewed to assess its validity and that alternative solutions to problems should be considered. The best options, including traffic management and single and dual carriageway improvements will be presented at a second stage of public consultation early in 2001. A recommendation to the Secretary of State on the preferred option will follow.
Earlier this year, people in the mid-Cornwall area were invited to visit public exhibitions at Bodmin, Redruth and Roche. The A30 trunk road is a key transport corridor for Cornwall, and extending the exhibitions to Redruth and Roche enabled the Highways Agency to reach a wider audience than is usual for a road improvement project. More than 860 people visited the three exhibitions over six days, where they talked to staff representing the agency and their consultants. They were asked to describe their experiences of living, working and travelling in the area. They were also invited to suggest ideas or preferences for improving the situation. Visitors were also encouraged to illustrate their ideas on maps provided for them, and many did so.
Unsurprisingly, many visitors to the exhibitions told the Highways Agency's representatives that they wanted a dual carriageway road to link the bypasses at Indian Queens and Bodmin. Most of them expressed their continuing support for the route recommended after the planning conference in 1994. However, a fair number of visitors were happy to discuss options other than a dual-carriageway road. They believed that their ideas, based on long personal experience, would be significant improvements. The most regularly mentioned concerns were improvement of the main junctions at Victoria, Castle-an-Dinas and the Roche crossroads, and straightening of the Par-Newquay branch line to avoid the iron bridge. People living in Roche and Tregoss and other villages directly affected by the diversionary routes saw the low-level iron bridge as the main problem.
Through the public exhibitions, the Highways Agency gained a clear understanding of local people's concerns and experiences, as well as a long list of suggested improvements. In addition to the public exhibitions, the agency distributed more than 16,000 questionnaires throughout the area and placed questionnaires at post offices and public libraries in the area bounded by Bodmin, Newquay, Redruth, Camborne, Truro and St. Austell. By the end of the consultation period, nearly 1,700 questionnaires had been returned to the Highways Agency at Bristol. The answers tended to confirm the general findings of the exhibitions, but also provided the agency with much

45WH
more detailed information. The agency has now started to build up a detailed picture of local travel patterns, turning movements at junctions and crossing movements over the A30. Information from the questionnaires has augmented the travel survey work carried out towards the end of last year.
An important finding of the consultation is the local perception of traffic congestion. While an overwhelming number of questionnaire respondents—97 per cent.—considered that the relevant section of the A30 was congested, there was no agreement about whether traffic congestion occured just on some summer weekends and at peak travel hours, or throughout the year. It is important to establish the true level, and the Highways Agency will undertake a further series of traffic surveys later this year.
Although much of the talk at the public exhibitions was about delays in journey times, or the various routes that local people used to avoid the main road at certain times, almost 50 per cent. of all questionnaire respondents placed safety issues first when asked to rank a series of important factors that need to be considered when improvements are planned. That important finding from the consultation process will help to inform the assessment and appraisal stage of the project. Many people also considered that the low-height iron bridge was the biggest single problem on that section of the A30.
In April, the Highways Agency published a full report of the first public consultation, which it placed on deposit at 40 locations in mid-Cornwall, including 20 parish councils. At the same time, the agency distributed a free newsletter to the same places, providing details of all the key findings from the consultation, as well as the list of options that the agency is now considering.
During the remainder of this year, the agency will consider the feasibility of the options suggested to it and identify those that are most likely to address the problems on the A30. The options will include consideration of measures to remove the obstacle of the iron bridge. One option, as the hon. Gentleman said, is to divert the Par to Newquay branch line, which will make the low bridge redundant. The Highways Agency is working with Cornwall county council, Railtrack and others to determine the feasibility of that. The options will be examined in greater detail and appraised in line with the Government's new approach to appraisal. Next January, the agency will return to mid-Cornwall for the second public consultation and ask local people to indicate their preferred option.
One cannot disguise the difficulties of delivering quickly the improvements that we all agree are necessary, namely reducing the incidence of road
46WH
accidents, improving the free flow of traffic and improving the reliability of journey times, especially in the summer months. It is also important to find a way to reduce the impact of large lorries on village communities. However, if the problems were easy to overcome, we might not be having this debate today. Goss moor is a site of special scientific interest and a national nature reserve. There are other sites of conservation importance nearby, as well as several scheduled ancient monuments. In developing solutions, the Highways Agency must have due regard to the environmental sensitivity of the area. A central tenet of the Government's planning policy is to minimise the impact of any development on both the built and the natural environment. The benefits of any proposed solution must be weighed carefully against any disbenefits.
The Highways Agency is working towards recommending a preferred solution to the Secretary of State in the summer of 2001. In doing so, the agency will need to be confident that the preferred solution will deliver the maximum benefit to the local and regional communities while minimising the impact on the natural environment.
Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister write to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and to me with an up-to-date assessment of the road safety issues on that stretch of road? Will he also say how many accidents have occurred on the branch line that runs through our constituencies, because there have been several?
Mr. Hill: I am sure that I can provide that information.
The Government acknowledge the extreme importance attached to the project by the people of Cornwall. The issue was raised with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when he met representatives from Cornwall county council last September. I shall meet Cornwall county councillors later today, and my noble Friend Lord Whitty, the Minister for Roads, has agreed to meet representatives from Cornwall county council soon to discuss progress on the A30 scheme. Meanwhile, the Highways Agency will continue to work with the council and with other interested parties to find an acceptable solution to the problem as quickly as possible. I hope that that information and the general contents of my response will assure the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and his constituents of the seriousness of the Government's approach to the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to One o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his April meeting with the management of Ford, Dagenham. [121070]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I met with representatives of the Ford Motor Company at the end of March, and representatives of the car industry including Ford at a meeting with the motor industry in April. However, I have had no meetings with the management of Ford, Dagenham during April.

  Serbia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to offer to assist the authorities in Serbia to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission similar to that in South Africa; and if he will make a statement. [122336]

  The Prime Minister
  There is no prospect of the present Serbian authorities establishing a credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission. However, the UK Government have always stressed the importance of bringing to justice those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in former Yugoslavia. To this end, we support the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) by providing information and resources. In 1999 our contribution to the ICTY was assessed at £3.1 million.

  In Serbia, our active support for Serbian civil society and independent media includes support for projects in this field, including one media project which aims to draw on the experiences of South Africa. The issue of "Reconciliation with the Past" will be the subject of one of the UK funded New Serbia Forum series, which brings together Serbian experts from the democratic opposition to discuss the policies necessary for the post-Milosevic era.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee on which date the amendments to the Finance Bill, due to be debated on 2 May, were posted on the parliamentary intranet; and if he will make a statement. [122120]

  Mr. Allan
  This is a matter for the Deliverer of the Vote, but I am advised that the Notice of Amendments given up to and including Thursday 27 April 2000 for the Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill was 68W
  posted on the parliamentary intranet at 8.13 am on Friday 28 April. The Amendment Paper for the business of the Committee of the whole House for Tuesday 2 May, which was substantially the same as the previous paper, was posted on the parliamentary intranet at 9.34 am on Tuesday 2 May. If the hon. Member has any further queries on this matter, I would advise him to contact the Deliverer of the Vote.

HEALTH

  Death Certificates, Royal Free
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are in place at the Royal Free Hospital to provide death certificates at weekends in respect of members of groups and communities who require them to arrange early burial or cremation because of their beliefs or culture; and if he will make a statement. [117840]

  Mr. Denham
  At the Royal Free Hospital, a doctor who knew the patient in life must sign a cause of death certificate. This is usually a junior doctor, if the death occurs out of normal hours. Once it has been completed, the body can be released to the funeral director who will obtain the death certificate from the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths. The Registrar's office opens from 9am–12:20pm every Saturday and they have an on-call system for Sunday registrations.

  In response to concerns that have been expressed by some religious groups, such as Muslims, that removal and burial can be unreasonably delayed where the death occurs at the weekend, I understand that the Home Office, which has a general responsibility for coroner arrangements, has asked coroners to ensure that they always take account of the religious feelings of the bereaved and deal with their concerns with understanding and sensitivity. Many coroners have discussed these issues with their local ethnic and religious communities.

  Thyroid Disease
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has sponsored as to whether the estrogenic dose from soy baby foods is in the range known to cause thyroid abnormalities; and if he will make a statement; [118340]

  (2) if he will estimate by age the number of people in the UK, and the proportion of the population which this represents of their age group, who are thought to be at risk of thyroid disease; and what correlation these figures have with the consumption levels of these age groups of soy baby food products. [118342]

  Ms Stuart
  Thyroid dysfunction is common and it is thought that up to 5 per cent. of the population are affected by hyper- or hypo-thyroidism. There is no central statistical information to answer the question with regard to incidence or risk of thyroid disease.

  Following the 1996 advice of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT), a large programme of research was sponsored to specifically determine if soy infant formula carries any risk for infants. The Food Standards Agency is now responsible for this research.
  69W
  The COT has set up a working group to review the available scientific evidence, including data on thyroid abnormalities, to determine if there are health implications associated with soy infant formula. The group will publish a report early next year. On the basis of this report, the FSA will consider whether any action needs to be taken.

  Slimming Drugs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many slimming clinics have closed as a result of the implementation by the Medicines Control Agency of the ban on the use of products containing amfepramone and phentermine; and how many jobs have been lost through such closures. [121109]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 May 2000]: We do not have evidence that slimming clinics are closing, other than the one claim brought to our attention by the right hon. Member, following the withdrawal of amfepramone and phentermine from the market.

  The European Commission's decision to withdraw amfepramone and phentermine products became effective from 9 April 2000. Following a legal challenge, the European Court has suspended the European Commission decision to withdraw amfepramone products. As a consequence the licences for amfepramone products were reinstated on 18 April 2000 and amfepramone has again been available on the United Kingdom market since that date. The European Court has not currently made any decision to suspend the Commission's decision regarding phentermine, which remains withdrawn.

  Food-related Illness
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of conventional farming methods on levels of food-related illness and the cost of treating food-related illness in the NHS. [118572]

  Ms Stuart
  There has not been any assessment carried out of the impact of conventional farming methods on the levels of food-related illness. Indeed, it is usually not possible to trace the source of sporadic cases of food poisoning (which constitute the majority of cases) to a specific food, let alone to a specific food producer.

  Although we have a good estimate of the total number of cases of infectious intestinal disease, and their cost to the National Health Service, it is not possible to say what proportion of this is foodborne. On the basis of a large study carried out in 1994–95, the cost to the NHS in England of treating illness due to the major food poisoning bacteria, Salmonella and Campylobacter, alone was between £26 million and £30 million per year from 1997 to 1999.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a substantive answer to his letter of 28 March on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Drickett. [122332]

  Ms Stuart
  My right hon. Friend replied to the right hon. Member on 15 May.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to promote research into and public awareness of causes and symptoms of myalgic encephalomyelitis; and if he will make a statement. [122395]

  Yvette Cooper
  The chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis working group convened by the Chief Medical Officer to produce good practice guidance for the care and treatment of people with CFS/ME—will make recommendations about the need to identify and commission further research.

  The CFS/ME working group is also producing briefing notes. These are being distributed widely. The aim of the briefing notes is to inform people about the working group and the condition itself.

  Priorities for departmental research and development support for the development of policy are determined through discussions with policy colleagues, the Departmental research Committee and Ministers. In the National Health Service research and development programme, priorities take account of widespread consultation with those using, delivering and managing services, within a framework overseen by the central research and development committee for the NHS. In all cases, priorities for our budgets reflect analysis of the burden of disease, potential benefits and our priorities and take account of the responsibilities and work of other funders.

  Honey (GM Pollen)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when, and on what terms, EU marketing consent was given for honey containing genetically modified pollen. [121699]

  Ms Stuart
  The European Commission, in response to questions from the European Parliament, has advised that honey containing trace amounts of pollen from genetically modified crops is not classified as a novel food, and may therefore be lawfully sold throughout the Community. Work carried out by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, a report of which is available in the Library, indicates that the amount of genetically modified material in honey is likely to be extremely small, at most no more than 0.00000000003g to 0.000000005g in a 500g jar.

  All GM crops intended for deliberate release in this country, and in the rest of the European Community, have to be thoroughly assessed for human and environmental safety before they are allowed to be planted. This assessment includes safety implications of any exposure to pollen through ingestion or inhalation from the air, or as a result of it landing on other crops.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hunting with Hounds
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Burns Committee to report. [121529]
  71W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I understand Lord Burns hopes to submit his report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary by late spring.

  Jay Abatan
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there will be a coroner's inquest, with a jury, into the death of Jay Abatan. [122481]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that the coroner will decide shortly whether to resume the inquest into the death. A jury would not be mandatory, but the coroner could summon one if she were satisfied that there was reason to do so.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable on the circumstances of the death and investigations following the attack on Jay Abatan in Brighton in January 1999. [122480]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have received a report from Sussex Police and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library.

  Animal Trainers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animal trainers are licensed under the Performing Animals Regulations 1925; and if he will make a statement. [122303]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office has so far this year received notification of 61 trainers and exhibitors of performing animals currently registered with local authorities under the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925. Local authorities were reminded last January of their obligation under the Act to copy related certificates of registration to the Secretary of State.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce new sentencing arrangements. [122565]

  Mr. Straw
  As part of our objectives of reducing crime and dispensing justice fairly, we have already put in place a comprehensive programme of work to reduce the rate of re-offending. This includes ensuring that the Prison Service and the probation service work more effectively together; improving the enforcement of community penalties; developing programmes, in custody and in the community; which are known to reduce re-offending (based on the "what works" strategy) and building on the opportunities which new technology opens up.

  Together these developments present an opportunity to consider possible new forms of sentences which better protect the public and reduce re-offending. In particular, they open up the possibility of a more flexible sentencing structure, in which the boundaries between custodial and community penalties are less rigid. However, the current legal framework established in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 may not be best suited to an approach of this sort. I have therefore decided to review that framework. The review will complement that of the criminal courts being conducted by Lord Justice Auld.
  72W
  Its terms of reference will be:
  In the light of the Government's objectives to protect the public by reducing crime and re-offending, and to dispense justice fairly and consistently, to consider:
  what principles should guide sentencing decisions;
  what types of disposal should be made available to the courts in order to meet the overarching objectives;
  the costs of different disposals and their relative effectiveness in reducing re-offending;
  what changes therefore need to be made to the current sentencing framework, as established by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, so as more effectively to reduce re-offending, including any transitional and consequential arrangements; and
  the likely impact of any recommendations in terms of costs and the effects on the prison population.
  In particular, the review should bear in mind the desirability of promoting flexibility in the use of custodial and community based approaches.

  The review will be led by a senior official from the Home Office. I want it to be a rigorous, evidence-based exercise. It will operate in an open way, involving and seeking views from as wide a range of interests as possible. I expect it to take about 12 months from now to produce recommendations, which will then be the subject of formal consultation.

  1999 European Parliamentary Elections
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete the review of the 1999 European parliamentary elections. [122568]

  Mr. Straw
  The review has been completed and copies have today been placed in the Library.

  Lowdham Grange Prison
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the recommendations for improvements made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in his unpublished report on Lowdham Grange are to be implemented before the publication of the report. [121466]

  Mr. Boateng
  The report was published on 27 April. In accordance with the protocol for handling inspection reports, the Prison Service will produce an action plan within 30 working days of publication of the report, addressing all the recommendations made by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. It is not possible to say how many of the 127 recommendations were fully implemented before publication, but once the action plan has been completed and reviewed at Prison Service Headquarters, I will write to the hon. Member with a progress report on implementation.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial penalties have been incurred at HMP Lowdham Grange since the prison opened; and what were the reasons for each penalty. [121465]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information in respect of performance measures is shown in the table. There was a reduction in fee of £702.00 in respect of an unavailable prisoner place in June 1998. There have been no reductions in fees since February 1999.
  73W

  Incident of failure

  Nature of performance measure

  June 1998 to August 1998

  September 1998 to November 1998

  December 1998 to February 1999

  Keeping Prisoners in Custody

  Failure of security procedures

  1

  0

  0

  Key/lock compromises

  2

  1

  0

  Maintaining Order and Control

  Assault on staff and others

  9

  5

  6

  Assault on prisoners

  1

  0

  0

  Incident of concerted indiscipline

  3

  3

  0

  Incident of self harm

  8

  1

  9

  Incident of Class A drugs

  22

  25

  11

  Contingency planning exercise

  0

  1

  0

  Comply with agreed reporting procedure

  1

  0

  0

  Tool/implement loss (found)

  2

  0

  1

  Tool/implement loss (not found)

  0

  1

  0

  Providing Decent Conditions

  Failure to provide meals

  2

  0

  0

  Response to prisoner complaints

  30

  12

  4

  Substantiated complaints

  5

  2

  2

  Repair failure

  3

  1

  0

  Providing Positive Regimes

  Deliver work hours

  0

  14

  13

  Reduction

  £45,080

  £31,231

  £6,334

  Private Prisons
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review his decision not to make contracts between his Department and private prison operators public; and if he will make a statement. [121464]

  Mr. Boateng
  Unpriced copies of contracts between the Prison Service and companies operating prisons are available in the Library and can be obtained from the Prison Service for a small fee to cover administrative and printing costs. This policy is consistent with the Cabinet Office guidance on interpreting the Code of Practice on Access to Official Information and with the requirements of the European Union Procurement Directives.

  Altcourse Prison
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial penalties have been incurred at HMP Altcourse since the prison opened; if he will list the reasons for each penalty; how many of the recommendations for improvements made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in his report were implemented before the publication of the report; what conclusions were drawn from the recent security audit; by what date recommendations for improvement were implemented; and what penalties were incurred by Group 4 as a result of that audit. [121468]

  Mr. Boateng
  Financial penalties totalling £212,728.23 were withheld for the period 1 December 1997 to 30 August 1998 for Altcourse prison. Of these, £195,000 have been calculated by converting the penalty points accrued during the period to a financial value in accordance with the performance mechanism contained in the contract. The amount also includes the sum of £17,728.23 which has been deducted from the contractor for 'doubling', in excess of permitted levels. There have been no financial penalties since 1 September 1998.
  74W
  The incidents leading to the deductions are listed in the table and are failures to comply with performance standards.

  The inspection report on Altcourse prison was published on 19 April. In accordance with the protocol for handling inspection reports, the Prison Service will produce an action plan within 30 working days of publication of the report, addressing all the recommendations made by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. It is not possible to say how many of the 106 recommendations were fully implemented before publication, but once the action plan has been completed and reviewed at Prison Service Headquarters, I will write to the hon. Member with a progress report on implementation.

  The overall compliance rating of the security audit of Altcourse prison was acceptable. Of the modules audited, four were rated as good, two as acceptable and three as deficient. Only one of these was rated as a significant finding and this has been fully addressed.

  An action plan has been produced addressing the recommendations for improvements, and some non-compliant baselines were resolved during the course of the audit. Ninety per cent. of the action plan has already been implemented with full implementation to be completed by the end of June. No financial penalties were incurred as a result of the audit.

  Altcourse prison: Failures to comply with performance standards

  Nature of performance

  Number of incidents

  Keep prisoners in custody

  Escape from Prison

  1

  Release in error

  1

  Items smuggled in Key lock Compromises

  66

  75W

  Altcourse prison: Failures to comply with performance standards

  Nature of performance

  Number of incidents

  Maintain order, control discipline and safe environment

  Assaults on Staff and others

  34

  Assaults on Prisoners

  29

  Incident of concerted indiscipline

  128

  Incidents of roof climbing

  2

  Incidents of self harm

  70

  Contingency Planning Exercise

  1

  Fire Evacuation Exercise

  1

  Failure to comply with agreed reporting procedures

  7

  Tool/Implement loss (found)

  1

  Providing decent conditions for Prisoners and meet their needs, including healthcare

  Failure to provide medical response

  155

  Response to Prisoner Complaints

  16

  Repair failure

  63

  Provision of sentence plans

  80

  Providing Positive Regimes

  Main Programmes Sentenced (Core Week)

  4

  Regime Activities Sentenced (Non-Core Week)

  4

  Out of cell hours

  36

  Helping Prisoners prepare for their return to the Community

  Visits starting within 30 minutes of appointment

  61

  Release without discharge report

  13

  Pre-release course attendance

  13

  EU Asylum Policy
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has received from the European Commission in respect of powers exercised by virtue of any convention or treaty article concerning the standardisation of tests for accepting asylum applications to Governments of member states. [121631]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am aware of no proposals from the European Commission concerning the standardisation of the criteria for the recognition of refugees, or for determining the member state responsible for determining an asylum claim made within the European Union. Such proposals would be consistent with the requirements of article 63 of the Amsterdam Treaty. However, the European Commission has to date produced only a discussion document on "Towards Common Standards on Asylum Procedures" and a working paper entitled "Revisiting the Dublin Convention". The latter seeks to initiate debate on the Dublin Convention as the first step towards developing Community legislation for determining which member state is responsible for considering an application for asylum submitted in one of the member states. The Government's view of this document can be found in the Home Office Explanatory Memorandum dated 10 May, deposited in the Library. The Government's view on the discussion paper "Towards common Standards on Asylum Procedures" can be found in the Home Office Explanatory Memorandum dated 26 March 2000 deposited in the Library.

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Human Rights Act 1998 following the judgment of 76W
  the Court of Appeal in the case of R v. Perry; what steps he is taking to prevent abuse of the type referred to in the judgment; and if he will make a statement. [121986]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 12 May 2000]: The Human Rights Act 1998 gives further effect in United Kingdom law to most of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, which successive governments and Parliament have abided by for the last 50 years. The Court of Appeal takes a robust approach to those who waste its time and the position should be no different when the Human Rights Act comes fully into force. All judges, lay magistrates and their legal advisers are being trained to deal with Convention points effectively.

  Wrongfully Convicted Prisoners
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial and other assistance is available at the time of release for prisoners freed by the Court of Appeal on grounds of wrongful conviction; and if he will make a statement. [121937]

  Mr. Straw
  Most prisoners when released from prison are given a discharge grant to help them meet their immediate needs. The position of prisoners discharged from court after a sentence has been quashed or reduced on appeal is that they would normally be entitled to a grant provided they have been in custody for at least nine days of their sentence.

  In cases of wrongful conviction where it has been decided that an individual qualifies for payment of compensation, he or she may then apply for an interim payment to help alleviate any immediate financial difficulties.

  Funding has been made available this year to enable a voluntary body, familiar with prisoner resettlement issues, to develop, on a national basis, an advice and counselling service specifically geared to the needs of successful appellants. We hope to be entering into discussions soon with possible providers of such a service. The Probation Service may also provide assistance on a voluntary basis.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances(a) asylum seekers, (b) persons granted asylum, (c) persons granted exceptional leave to remain and (d) other persons subject to immigration control may lawfully work in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [121812]

  Mrs. Roche
  The circumstances vary according to the category.

  Asylum seekers who have not received a first decision on their asylum application within six months may apply to the Home Office for permission to work. Where written permission is granted, they will be able to take employment lawfully.

  Persons granted asylum are given indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and as such have no restriction attached to their stay. They may seek whatever employment they wish and they do not need to seek permission from the Immigration Authorities to take employment.
  77W
  Persons granted exceptional leave to remain are free to seek employment within the limit of their leave to remain. They do not need to seek permission from the Immigration Authorities in order to do so.

  There are a considerable number of categories under which persons subject to immigration control may lawfully engage in employment. Details of the various categories which permit employment and self-employment within the Immigration Rules, and the conditions attached to leave granted under those categories, are set out in the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 395. In addition, there are a number of concessions that operate outside the Rules, under which those who meet the requisite criteria may lawfully take employment. Details of the various concessions are contained in the Immigration Directorate's Instructions. Copies of the Rules and the Instructions are available in the Library on the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/hpg.htm.

  Gardening Leave
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officials in(a) his Department and (b) its non-departmental public bodies and Executive agencies are currently on gardening leave. [121813]

  Mr. Straw
  Six officials in the Home Office (and none in our non departmental public bodies and Executive agencies) are currently on special leave with pay while awaiting a posting.

  Corpus Juris
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Corpus Juris and the EU InterGovernmental Conference. [120888]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 15 May 2000,Official Report, column 51W.

  The Intergovernmental Conference should focus on the institutional reforms necessary to prepare the European Union for enlargement.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television (Wales)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what proportion of television viewers in Wales have access to Channel 4 television; and what plans he has to increase the availability of Channel 4 in Wales; [121930]

  (2) what proposals he has to increase the availability of Channel 5 in Wales, other than via pay-for-access satellite; [121928]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the availability of Channel 4 in Wales following the implementation of digital television. [121929]

  Janet Anderson
  The priority for the use of scarce frequency channels is to develop digital terrestrial television across the UK, rather than to extend analogue Channel 5 services.
  78W
  The Welsh transmitters broadcast analogue S4C, instead of Channel 4, so only the 40 per cent. or so of Welsh viewers who can receive signals from English terrestrial transmitters can obtain terrestrial analogue Channel 4. The introduction of digital television has improved the availability of Channel 4 in Wales, since it can be broadcast alongside S4C from Welsh transmitters.

  The Government will ensure that all consumers in Wales who presently receive analogue television will be able to receive the main free-to-air channels digitally, before the analogue transmissions are fully switched to digital.

  Channel 3
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has to improve regional management and control of Channel 3. [122459]

  Janet Anderson
  These are matters for the Independent Television Commission. The Broadcasting Act 1996 empowers the Commission to vary a Channel 3 licence on a change of control if they consider it may be prejudicial to the regional character of the service. The Commission can take into account the extent to which managerial and editorial decisions are taken by persons employed in the licence area.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Costs
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the(a) start-up and (b) annual running costs to business of (i) the working families tax credit, (ii) the recoupment of the student loan and (iii) stakeholder pensions. [121071]

  Mr. Byers
  Details of costs arising from these measures are set out in the Regulatory Impact Assessments prepared by the relevant departments, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Gas Market
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to implement the Gas Directive (98/30/EC). [122714]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today issued a consultation document outlining proposals for implementation of the 'downstream' aspects of the Gas Directive. This follows a parallel consultation document outlining proposals to implement those aspects of the Gas Directive which apply to upstream pipeline networks, which I issued on 30 March 2000,Official Report, columns 242–43W.

  The regime for the gas market in Great Britain, which has been fully open to competition since 1998, with regulated third party access to pipelines and requirements for non-discrimination, is generally well ahead of the requirements of the Directive. However, there are a number of areas where relatively limited technical amendments will be needed to ensure full compliance.
  79W
  The consultation document identifies requirements for amendment to the regulatory framework in the following areas:
  improvements in the transparency of the procedures for licence applications;
  a duty of non-discrimination to be imposed on certain undertakings (in addition to those already subject to such a duty);
  separate internal management accounts to be kept by certain undertakings;
  statutory provisions for third party access to be applied to certain undertakings;
  competent authorities for dispute settlement purposes to be designated.

  It also identifies a need for certain administrative actions.

  The parallel 'upstream' consultation document proposed that the interconnecting pipeline between the United Kingdom and Belgium should be regarded as an upstream pipeline for the purposes of the Directive. However, the responses to that document may make a good case for treating it as a downstream pipe-line. The present consultation document therefore seeks views on how this interconnector might be treated as a 'downstream' pipeline, subject to statutory third party access with appeal to the Secretary of State.

  The regulatory impact costs on business, on which comments are invited, are expected to be negligible.

  Comments on the consultation document have been requested by 16 June 2000.

  A copy of the document has been placed in the Library of the House. The document will also be available on the Department's website (www.dti.uk).

  Insolvency Service
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Quinquennial Review of the Insolvency Service will take place; and what the terms of reference for the review will be. [122715]

  Mr. Byers
  I am launching the Quinquennial Review of the Insolvency Service today.

  The Government are committed to achieving better public services that are of higher quality and are more responsive to the needs of the people who use them. The services and functions provided by the Executive Agencies and non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are at the heart of this programme of continuous improvement and their effective delivery is a key element in the success of Modernising Government. Regular Agency and NDPB reviews are an important element in ensuring that we have in place the right structures to deliver the Government's agenda effectively and to provide a strong focus on improving their future performance.

  The terms of reference for the review of the Insolvency Service are:
  To consider and to make recommendations regarding:First, the organisational status which would be most appropriate for the policy, work and operation of the Insolvency Service in the future, taking into account its contribution to the objectives of the Department and of the Government as a whole, including the Modernising Government agenda, developments in
  80W
  the national and international legislative, regulatory and commercial environment, and the views of customers, staff, consumers and other interested parties; and Second, whether any changes should be made to the way in which the Insolvency Service operates, including its aims and objectives, targets and financial controls; the scope of the activities undertaken; and whether its activities could be done more effectively.The review is to be undertaken in accordance with the latest Cabinet Office guidance, published in January 2000.
  The review will be led by Pamela Denham, a former official in the Department of Trade and Industry, with support from officials and specialist advice as appropriate. The Review Team will report to a Steering Group which will include two independent members (Gill Hankey and Geoffrey Drage) and be chaired by Dr. Catherine Bell, the Director General of Corporate and Consumer Affairs. The aim will be to complete each stage of the review within three months, as recommended in the Cabinet Office guidance.

  As indicated in the terms of reference, the Review Team is seeking the views of interested parties. A consultation paper is available from:

  The Insolvency Service Review Team

  Room 876

  Esso House

  96 Victoria Street

  London

  SW1E 5JL

  tel: 010 7215 2255

  fax: 020 7215 2987

  e-mail: cca.commens@lond02.dti.gov.uk

  Comments should be sent to the same address by 6 June 2000.

  Rover
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contingency plans the Government have in the event that the conditional offer to Phoenix by Burdale Financial, the subsidiary of First Union, of £200 million to finance the acquisition of Rover is withdrawn following due diligence; and if he will make a statement. [122244]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The financial backing which it has received for its bid is a commercial matter for the Phoenix Consortium. The Consortium has not sought Government finance for its proposals.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to meet representatives of(a) Burdale Financial and (b) First Union to discuss the financing of the acquisition of Rover by Phoenix. [122242]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  None. This is a commercial matter for the Phoenix Consortium.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the status of the offer to Phoenix by First Union of £200 million to finance the acquisition of Rover in respect of(a) due diligence and (b) an examination of the business plan of Phoenix; and if he will make a statement. [122241]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  These are commercial matters for the Phoenix Consortium. It would not be appropriate to comment.
  81W
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the prospects for Honda's involvement in the future of the Rover plant. [122243]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  None. This is commercial matter between Honda and the Phoenix Consortium.

  Ilisu Dam
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has had with the Turkish Government regarding the Ilisu Dam Project. [120897]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not had any discussions with the Turkish government regarding the Ilisu Dam project. As part of its normal procedures, the Export Credits Guarantee Department has had discussions with the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI), the Turkish authority responsible for the project; the most recent meeting took place in London in February.

  Defence Manufacturers Association
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times his Department has met representatives of the Defence Manufacturers Association since 1997. [122245]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department maintains a regular dialogue with the Defence Manufacturers Association (DMA) on sectoral and export issues. Many of the meetings between officials in my Department and the DMA are informal or during the course of other events and no central record is kept. In 1997, the then Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for Small Firms addressed the DMA's Annual General Meeting.

WALES

  Youth Service
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the development of the Youth Service in Wales and the Learning and Skills Bill[Lords]. [121238]

  Mr. Hanson
  The Government have introduced amendments to the Learning and Skills Bill to enable the National Assembly to develop, together with local authorities and others, an enhanced youth support service for young people in Wales.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Jay Abatan
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will call for a report from the Crown Prosecution Service on its actions following the attack on Jay Abatan in Brighton in January 1999. [122482]
  82W
  The Solicitor-General
  I have received an initial report about this case from the Crown Prosecution Service. I am now making further inquiries and will provide as substantive answer as soon as I am able.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Asylum Seekers (Housing)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assumptions he made about the number of asylum seekers living in south east England when he prepared his response to the Crow report. [120255]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department's household projections are only one of several factors which informed the Proposed Changes to draft Regional Planning Guidance for the south east. I refer the hon. Member to my answer below—which clarifies the relationship between population projections in which assumptions about asylum seekers are made and the Department's household projections.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assumptions he has made in his Department's projections of future population and household formation trends about the number of asylum seekers in England. [120276]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 2 May 2000]: National population projections are prepared by the Government Actuary's Department and published jointly with the Office for National Statistics. A description of the assumptions in the 1996-based national population projections can be found in "National Population Projections: 1996-based" (ONS series PPG2 No. 21, published by TSO). These included a long-term asylum seeker assumption of 5,000 a year to the UK, virtually all of whom were assumed to settle in England. This assumption has subsequently been revised.

  The 1996-based national population projections were an input into the Department's household projections, the latest of which is published in "Projections of Households in England to 2021", a copy of which is in the Library. No other information about asylum seekers in England was used in producing the household projections.

  A6 (Dove Holes)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, in respect of the A6 trunk road through Dove Holes, Derbyshire, for each of the last 10 years,(a) the number of (i) fatalities and (ii) injuries recorded in road accidents and (b) the number of speeding offences detected in the 30 mph zone; and what assessment he has made of the efficacy of the recently implemented traffic calming measures there. [121053]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to my hon. Friend.
  83W
  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Tom Levitt, dated 16 May 2000:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your recent question requesting (a) the number of (i) fatalities and (ii) injuries recorded in road accidents and (b) the number of speeding offences detected in the 30mph zone, both over the last ten years, on the A6 Trunk Road through Dove Holes, Derbyshire. You also asked what assessment had been made of the efficacy of the recently implemented traffic calming measures there.
  Unfortunately, we do not have personal injury figures for a full ten-year period for this length of A6. The figures between April 1994 and December 1999, the latest period for which information is available, are as follows:

  Fatal - Nil;

  Serious - 7;

  Slight - 28

  As enforcement of speed limits is a matter for the police, the Highways Agency does not record the number of speeding offences on trunk roads. This information should be available from the Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary.
  The "traffic calming measures" to which you refer take the form of variable speed limits (30mph in the built-up area, 40mph in the more rural area) rather than physical constraints on the speed of traffic more normally associated with traffic calming schemes. At present, it is too early to say how effective the measures at Dove Holes have been; monitoring began in April and a report will be produced later this year. I will ensure that you receive a copy.
  In the meantime, if you wish to discuss any aspect further, the Highways Agency Route Manager for this length of A6 is Steve Forgham. He can be contacted at our office at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham, B15 1BL, or by telephone on 0121 678 8506.

  Correspondence
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letter of 28 February from the right hon. Member for Fareham about(a) the effect of the 1994 Land Tribunal Judgment in the case of Batchelor v. Kent County Council and (b) the action he intends to take following that judgment. [120983]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I replied to the right hon. Member's letter of 28 February on 15 May. My reply sets out the current position on the area of the compensation code that featured in the Batchelor case and of the compulsory purchase policy review which has been considering the whole question of compensation for compulsory purchase. I apologise for the delay, which was caused by problems with our ministerial correspondence tracking system.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what communications he has received from(a) the European Commission and (b) other sources concerning the compatibility with the public ownership and funding of those agencies now operating in the United Kingdom of European Commission proposals to create a single European Airspace and European Air Safety Agency. [121638]

  Mr. Mullin
  DETR received in January 2000 a copy of the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled "The creation of a single European sky"—EM No. 13735/99 COM(99) 614 final.
  84W
  This Communication examined in detail the European air traffic management system. It provides the Commission's views on where it believes there are shortcomings, and makes proposals for areas which need further study in order to achieve the Commission's objective of "European airspace as a seamless continuum". In general, the Commission's ideas, such as the need to separate service provision from regulation, seem compatible with UK air traffic control policy. This is also the broad consensus view of the respondents to DETR's recent consultation exercise on this Communication.

  In June 1998, the Council mandated the Commission to develop, on behalf of the European Community and the member states, a Treaty for a new international organisation to be known as the European Aviation Safety Authority, involving both EU and non-EU member states, as well as the Community itself. The mandate required the Commission first to submit a draft outline text of the founding Treaty to a Special Committee of member states representatives. The draft Treaty agreed by the Special Committee envisages that national aviation authorities, such as the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, will continue as nationally constituted.

  The Commission has recently suggested an alternative option, based on the creation of a Community Agency. In this connection, DETR received in April 2000 a copy of the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled, "Commission Working Document with a view to discussions within the Council on the creation of the European Aviation Safety authority in the Community framework"—COM(2000) 144 final. This document also envisages the continuation of national aviation authorities.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which Treaty Articles, Regulations and Directives relating to the control of air traffic within the European Union will(a) permit and (b) prohibit, a continuation of the current ownership of and mode of control in the airspace of the United Kingdom. [121630]

  Mr. Mullin
  By virtue of Article 295 of the Treaty of Rome, provisions made by the European Union under the Common Transport Policy must not prejudice the rules in member states governing the system of property ownership.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of total aircraft movements in the United Kingdom were handled by National Air Traffic Services on the most recent date for which figures are available. [121751]

  Mr. Mullin
  In 1999, NATS handled 46 per cent. of all aircraft movements in or out of the 60 UK airports for which data are available. In addition, NATS handles all flights between UK airports and aircraft over-flying the UK.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many passengers used licensed airports in the United Kingdom during 1999; in how many of those airports National Air Traffic Services was provider of air traffic control; and where such airports were. [121750]
  85W
  Mr. Mullin
  In 1999 there were almost 170 million terminal passengers at the 60 UK airports for which data are available. NATS provided ATC services at 10 of these airports:

  Aberdeen

  Belfast International

  Cardiff

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  London Heathrow

  London Gatwick

  London City

  London Stansted

  Manchester.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the providers of flight information air traffic control services to the aircraft in the open flight information regions. [121752]

  Mr. Mullin
  All Air Traffic Control (ATC) Units, both civil and military, are required to provide flight information services (FIS). This service is provided at the London and Scottish Air Traffic Control Centres by dedicated FIS controllers. At other ATC units, the provision of FIS is one of the primary responsibilities of all air traffic controllers.

  Local Council Cabinets
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the operation of the procedures and the timescale for the introduction of the Cabinet system of Government in local councils. [121485]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Local Government Bill[Lords], now before the House, provides for councils to adopt a new constitution with a separate executive. If the Bill is enacted, we expect that, under normal circumstances, all councils will have adopted a new constitution by May or June 2002 at the latest. We have now published for consultation revised drafts of the proposed guidance and regulations on new constitutions for councils; copies are available from the Vote Office and have been placed in the Library.

  Driving Test Centres (South London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the driving test centres in South London. [121974]

  Mr. Hill
  There are 14 driving test centres in the Greater London constituencies south of the Thames at:South Norwood; Wallington (Mint House); Wallington (Old Town House); Morden; Southfields; Sutton; Belvedere; Bexley Heath; Hither Green; Sidcup; West Wickham and Surbiton.

  There are two test centres in Croydon, one conducting tests for learner lorry and bus drivers, the other for learner car drivers.

  The test centres at Southfields and Surbiton are to be relocated to a new site at Tolworth-Surbiton from 8 June and Southfields from early September.

  Through Traffic (Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Gloucestershire County Council regarding proposals to remove through traffic on the A40 through Cheltenham. [122007]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has held no such discussions. This is a matter for the County Council to consider within the context of its Local Transport Plan.

  Mayoral Election
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he [his Ministers or his officials](a) approved and (b) were informed of the wording of the instructions to voters on the supplementary vote system used in the election for Mayor of London that were (i) printed on ballot papers, (ii) displayed in polling stations and (iii) to be given orally to voters; what discussions he [his Ministers or his officials] have had with, and what representations he has received from (1) the Greater London Returning Officer, (2) Ministers and officials in the Home Department and (3) other persons regarding the wording of the instructions used at the election for Mayor of London; and if he will make a statement. [121814]

  Mr. Hill
  In March, a Greater London Returning Officer (GLRO) was appointed to oversee the running of the first GLA election. In addition 14 constituency Returning Officers (CROs) were appointed to take the poll in their areas.

  The wording of the instructions to voters printed on the mayoral ballot paper and displayed in polling station were prescribed in the Greater London Authority Elections (No. 2) Rules (SI 2000/427), which were approved by Parliament. No representations have been made to Ministers about the wording of the instructions; I understand that a small number of representations have been made to the GLRO.

  The GLRO will be discussing experience of the election arrangements (which included a number of innovations) with the CROs, and will let me have his conclusions in due course.

  Hazardous Loads
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received regarding the transportation of hazardous loads by road in tunnels. [121724]

  Mr. Hill
  None.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will restrict the transportation of dangerous and hazardous goods to rail; and if he will make a statement. [121723]

  Mr. Hill
  Consignors of dangerous goods may choose the mode of transport most appropriate for their needs, provided that they comply with the relevant safety requirements. As demonstrated in the 1992 Health and Safety Commission Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances report on the major hazard aspects of the transport of dangerous substances, a copy of which is in
  87W
  the Library of the House, there is no evidence that one mode of transport is generally more dangerous than another.

  Police Authorities (Council Tax)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the police authorities of England in order of their Band D council tax precept for the financial year 2000–01. [122009]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Band D council tax precepts issued by English police authorities for 2000–01, listed in order of the amounts set, are given in the table:

  £

  Police authority

  Council tax (Band D)

  GLA—police

  91

  Lincolnshire Police

  86

  Dorset Police

  84

  Cumbria Police

  84

  Staffordshire Police

  83

  Merseyside Police

  81

  Northamptonshire Police

  80

  Surrey Police

  79

  Gloucestershire Police

  78

  Warwickshire Police

  78

  Wiltshire Police

  76

  West Mercia Police

  74

  Norfolk Police

  72

  Derbyshire Police

  71

  Hertfordshire Police

  68

  Essex Police

  68

  Leicestershire Police

  68

  Avon and Somerset Police

  68

  Bedfordshire Police

  67

  Cleveland Police

  66

  Nottinghamshire Police

  65

  Greater Manchester Police

  63

  Lancashire Police

  63

  Cambridgeshire Police

  62

  Suffolk Police

  61

  Cheshire Police

  61

  Thames Valley Police

  60

  Humberside Police

  60

  South Yorkshire Police

  59

  Devon and Cornwall Police

  59

  West Yorkshire Police

  59

  North Yorkshire Police

  57

  Kent Police

  56

  Sussex Police

  56

  Hampshire Police

  55

  West Midlands Police

  55

  Durham Police

  53

  Northumbria Police

  52

  Housing (West Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of growth in housing in West Oxfordshire over the next 20 years. [121816]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The level of house building in Oxfordshire is set through Regional Planning Guidance for the South-East (RPG9). The next round of this guidance is currently being prepared by my Department, taking into account the first draft prepared by the local authorities in the region, and also responses made to this draft. We have now published the latest set of proposed changes and are currently inviting comments.
  88W
  Draft RPG9 allocates an annual average of 43,000 new dwellings per year in the South-East. Local authorities in the region have been asked to consider how this figure can best be divided between the counties, working from an illustrative distribution included with the draft. This suggests that 2,680 new dwellings could be built per year in Oxfordshire.

  Following final publication of RPG9 later this year it will be the responsibility of Oxfordshire County Council and the district councils in the area to decide on the allocation of the Oxfordshire housing figure between the districts, including West Oxfordshire. This figure will be then adopted in the next Oxfordshire County Structure Plan.

  Until this time the building rates set out in the current Oxfordshire Structure Plan will apply. This allocates 6,750 new dwellings to West Oxfordshire District between 1996 and 2011.

  Ivory Trade
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding Government policy towards the ivory trade and elephant poaching, following the recent agreement of countries attending the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species meeting. [122141]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]: The Government support the co-operative arrangements for elephant conservation between the African range states which have developed at a series of special dialogue meetings over the last five years, sponsored by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the UN CITES Secretariat. The latest dialogue meeting took place in Nairobi immediately before the CITES Conference and was, like the previous meetings, partly funded by my Department. Senior UK officials attended the meeting. The Nairobi dialogue agreed arrangements for each African region to participate in two systems which underpin future elephant management and trade: the Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) and the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS). The dialogue paved the way for the compromise reached at the CITES Conference itself.

  The main features of the compromise are that the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, estimated at a total of 192,000 animals, are now listed on Appendix II of the Convention. This means that managed trade in elephant products of these four populations is agreed to be scientifically sustainable according to the criteria laid down under CITES. However there are still concerns among a number of African states—which we share—about resuming further commercial trade in raw ivory at present, particularly as we cannot yet assess the full impact of last year's experimental ivory auctions on elephant poaching levels, both in Africa and Asia. We therefore welcome the decision reached as part of the compromise which sets zero quotas for the export of ivory from southern Africa.

  MIKE and ETIS are expected to provide comprehensive information to enable the next CITES Conference in 2002 to decide whether controlled ivory trade can safely be resumed, and whether the conservation benefits of such trade outweigh any remaining risks. The

  89W
  European Union, with the support of the UK, is considering a grant of 4 million Euro to MIKE. The UK has already provided £60,000 towards the cost of ETIS

  The Government appreciate the role played by responsible non-Government organisations, particularly the World Wide Fund for Nature and Fauna and Flora International, in obtaining such a successful outcome in Nairobi.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the standard spending assessment per head of population for each English county for(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–2001, ranked from highest to lowest; and if he will make a statement. [122238]

  Ms Armstrong
  Three tables have been placed in the Library giving the standard spending assessment per head of population for each English county for 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively.

  Railtrack Safety Company
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 May 2000,Official Report, column 360W, on Railtrack, under what statutory provisions Railtrack is required to consult before creating a safety company; with whom it will consult; and what are the terms and timetable for the consultation. [122457]

  Mr. Hill
  Arrangements for consultation by Railtrack before the proposed safety company assumes any safety responsibilities and in respect of other requirements for the company's operation are expected to be specified in modifications to its Network Licence. The Rail Regulator will consult shortly on his proposals for these modifications before the nature of the obligations are finalised. These would be imposed under the Railways Act 1993.

  Water Sources (Drug Residues)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evidence he has assessed which indicates that potentially damaging residues from medicinal drugs are contaminating waterways and drinking water sources. [121528]

  Mr. Mullin
  Last year the Environment Agency commissioned a review of human pharmaceuticals in the environment for completion by the end of May. This will report on the information available on such substances in the environment, their occurence, fate and ecological effects and will provide a basis for further work. The Department has also funded extensive monitoring for drug residues in drinking water sources since the 1970s. Although certain common drugs have been detected at very low concentrations in some drinking water sources, current drinking water treatment processes are effective in removing them.

  Ten Year Transport Plan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has decided to publish his 10-year transport plan before the end of July. [122485]
  90W
  Mr. Hill
  As with all such departmental reports, we will publish the plan when it is ready.

  Rail Access Charges Review
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Rail Regulator will conclude his review of access charges. [122486]

  Mr. Hill
  It is the Rail Regulator's present intention to publish his final review notice on access charges in early September 2000, subject to the outcome of the consultation announced on 14 April, the deadline for responses for which is 26 May.

  Urban Task Force
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the recommendations made by the Urban Task Force in the report, "Towards an Urban Renaissance", have been implemented; and if he will make a statement. [122167]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Urban Task Force report, "Towards an Urban Renaissance", made more than 100 recommendations about how to revitalise our towns and cities. It formed an excellent contribution to the debate on how to reverse the social, physical and economic decline that many of our urban areas have faced in recent decade

  The Government are looking at the report's conclusions in detail as we prepare for the forthcoming White Paper on urban policy. But we, and others, have already addressed around a quarter of the recommendations including:
  Setting up three pilot Urban Regeneration Companies in Liverpool, East Manchester and Sheffield. These will co-ordinate the regeneration of run-down urban neighbourhoods within a wider local strategy developed by the local authority and its partners, listening to local people's needs and ensuring local priorities are met.
  Setting up nine pilot home zones—traffic schemes in residential areas which will give residents more control over traffic movements and ensure that the needs of people. rather than traffic, come first.
  Publishing revised planning policy guidance on development plans(PPG12) which advocates simpler and more effective development plans. This helps to fulfil the Urban Task Force's recommendation to streamline the planning process.
  Piloting eight Private Finance Initiatives for Housing Revenue Account pathfinders, helping fulfil the need to attract private investment in local communities.
  Taking steps to put Local Transport Plans (LTPs) on a statutory footing, ensuring that local authorities take an integrated and strategic approach to planning transport provision in their area.
  Publishing draft revised planning policy guidance on transport (PPG13) to promote civilised towns and cities where the needs of people are given priority.
  Setting up a new Govermnent unit for neighbourhood warden schemes to provide pump-priming funding to test out these schemes.

  91W
  Publishing revised planning policy guidance on Housing (PPG3) which introduces a new sustainable approach to planning for housing. This addresses many of Lord Rogers' recommendations through its main provisions which include:
  Targets to put 60 per cent. of new homes on brownfield sites—set at all levels of the planning hierarchy, from regional to local level, and contributing to the achievement of the national 60 per cent. target.
  A sequential approach—to ensure that brownfield land is used for development before greenfield land whenever possible.
  New policies on land take—to avoid inefficient development and encourage higher intensity development in urban areas around good transport nodes.
  Looking again at greenfield land in the system—to ensure that land already allocated for housing meets the new approach.
  New car parking standards—removing minimum car parking standards, and substituting a maximum of, on average, 1.5 car parking spaces per dwelling.
  A new emphasis on quality development—to stress the need for imaginative design, taking account of what people want and ensuring better links with public transport.
  Improved housing choice and affordability—encouraging mixed communities with mixed tenures and strengthening the preference for affordable housing to be provided on-site.
  Tackling unpopular housing—by getting local planning authorities to look at how to recycle existing buildings as well as recycle land.

  Many other recommendations will be addressed in part or in full by the new power which the Government are giving to local authorities to promote and improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. Other recommendations are also being taken forward in the context of the Government's Housing Green Paper.

  Building Control
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made with the setting up of an advisory body on performance standards in building control. [122679]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department and the National Assembly for Wales have joined the Association of Corporate Approved Inspectors, the Construction Industry Council, the District Surveyors Association and the Local Government Association in signing a Memorandum of Understanding that establishes a new Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group.

  The Advisory Group's terms of reference are:
  to keep under review the effectiveness of the standards and guidance published in "Building Control Performance Standards" (July 1999) and to make recommendations for revisions of the standards and guidance
  to advise on, and draw up recommendations on, performance indicators for the effective delivery of building control and procedures for the monitoring of building control bodies
  to consider complaints from building control bodies, other statutory bodies and other parties with an interest in relevant building work, that building control bodies have not acted in accordance with the Building Control Performance Standards; where appropriate, to refer such complaints to relevant other bodies; and/or to make recommendations to the building control bodies concerned on prevention of future non-compliant action.

  I welcome the formation of the Advisory Group, which met for the first time on 10 May 2000. I look forward to working with the Group and its member bodies to
  92W
  promote continuous improvement in standards of service in both the public and private sectors of the building control profession.

  In addition to representatives of the signatory bodies, there will be a representative of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and two members representing building users and construction clients.

  The Audit Commission has accepted an invitation from the Group to participate in its work as observers.

  The first chair of the Group is Michael Finn FRICS who chaired the steering group which drew up the performance standards for building control published in July last year. The Construction Industry Council will provide the secretariat for the Group for an initial period of three years.

  Millennium Dome
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the final shortlist for the proposed uses for the Millennium Dome after the millennium celebration will be announced. [122718]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government have announced today that two proposals have been selected to advance to the final stage of the competition. Detailed proposals and indicative financial offers were invited from bids shortlisted in January. These two bids were chosen from a strong field of five bids remaining in the competition.

  The bids in the final shortlist are:
  Dome Europe, an advanced leisure, business and retail attraction, proposed by the Principal Finance Group of Nomura International plc.
  Legacy plc, a high technology industrial campus of workspace, leisure and retail uses, proposed by Robert Bourne.

  In reaching this decision the Government have evaluated the bids against the published criteria, and have taken into account the views of umbrella organisations in the area and the public responses to a national consultation exercise held in April. Details of the public consultation results have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  We will now work with the bidders to develop these proposals further, and will proceed to a decision in the summer on the winning proposal.

  Raptors
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was(a) the cost of producing the Langholm report into raptors and (b) the cost of compensation that had to be paid to landowners. [120378]

  Dr. Reid
  I have been asked to reply.

  The subject matter is now devolved. However, the Game Conservancy Trust and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology carried out a study between 1992 and 1996 of grouse populations on Langholm and other moorland estates in response to concerns about the impact of birds of prey on the number of grouse available during the annual shooting season. The results, published in 1997 as "Birds of Prey and Red Grouse", cost £400,000; the study

  93W
  was funded and guided by a consortium of those with an interest in the subject, which included Scottish Natural Heritage, Buccleuch Estates, RSPB and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  The study was undertaken for research purposes: no compensation was paid to landowners.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the report of the independent Husbandry Panel on Cattle TB. [122717]

  Ms Quin
  The Panel's report is published today. Copies are being placed in the Parliamentary Libraries and will be made widely available. We would like to thank Dr. Clive Philips, the Panel Chairman, and his colleagues for their work. The Government will now consider the Panel's recommendations in consultation with the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB and other interested parties before deciding how best to take them forward.

  IACS Fraud
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions for Integrated Administration and Control System fraud his Department has initiated since 1997; and how many of them have resulted in a guilty verdict. [122394]

  Ms Quin
  .: Since 1997 there have been 15 prosecutions for fraud against CAP schemes falling under the IACS umbrella. Of these 14 were found guilty, one not guilty.

DEFENCE

  Defence Transport and Movements Agency
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Transport and Movements Agency for the financial year 2000–01. [122567]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 2000–01:
  Key Target 1:
  To meet the Customers' requirements as specified in Customer Supplier Agreements (CSAs):

  94 per cent. or more of Agency transactions within agreed criteria.

  94 per cent. or more of the services provided under call-off contracts at a satisfactory level.

  Customer Satisfaction rating for all Agency services, including call-off contracts, of 85 per cent. or more.

  Key Target 2:

  To achieve an average 3 per cent. reduction in administrative unit costs.

  Key Target 3:

  To demonstrate improved net added value.

  94W Key Target 4:

  To achieve at least a satisfactory rating in the provision of operational transport and movements support.

  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency for the financial year 2000–01. [122569]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 2000–01:
  Key Target 1:
  To meet the Customers' requirements as specified in Customer Supplier Agreements (CSAs):

  85 per cent. or more of issues to consumers to be within specified supply chain processing times.

  95 per cent. or more of receipts to be processed within agreed time limits.

  No more than 0.1 per cent. of issues to be subject to an accepted discrepancy report.

  The aggregated level and value of stock written off as a result of DSDA actions to be less than the levels agreed in CSAs.

  Key Target 2:

  To achieve an average 5 per cent. reduction in the unit cost of output.

  Key Target 3:

  To achieve an average 5 per cent. reduction in receipts processing times.

  Key Target 4:

  To achieve a 5 per cent. reduction in the cost of quality failures.

  British Forces Post Office Agency
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the British Forces Post Office agency for the financial year 2000–01. [122570]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the British Forces Post Office agency has been set the following Key Targets for 2000–01:
  Key Target 1:
  To meet the Customers' requirements as specified in Customer Supplier Agreements (CSAs):

  96.6 per cent. or more of deliveries of Official Mail and BFPO Private Mail to be within CSA specified times.

  The Quality of Service Standard for all classes of mail to be greater than or equal to 94 per cent. of deliveries within CSA specified times.

  98.5 per cent. or more of aggregated deliveries of Courier Mail to be within CSA specified times.

  Key Target 2:

  To achieve an average 3 per cent. reduction in the unit cost of output.

  Civilian Personnel Costs
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the average annual cost of employing 10,000 MOD civilians. [121805]

  Dr. Moonie
  £169 million. In calculating this figure, it has been possible to take account of Pay, Employer's Related National Insurance Contributions and Pensions
  95W
  contributions only. Any calculation of overheads such as rents, rates, utilities costs, food, office equipment and services could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to extend the remit of the National Radiological Protection Board's study of the incidence of multiple myeloma among veterans of the UK's atmospheric nuclear test programme in the 1950s. [121980]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 34W.

  Dartmoor (Live Firing)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) advertised and (b) actual number of days on which army live firing took place within each of the three ranges in the Dartmoor National Park for the year ended 31 December 1999. [121515]

  Dr. Moonie
  The advertised and actual number of days on which the Armed Services fired on each of the three firing ranges in the Dartmoor National Park for the year ended 31 December 1999 is as follows:

  Advertised

  Actual

  Okehampton

  78

  40

  Willsworthy

  205

  131

  Merrivale

  137

  83

  Ships (Lynx Helicopters)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of frigates and destroyers that are operating without the Lynx helicopter. [121603]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: At present, there are no frigates and destroyers on current operations without their dedicated Lynx flight. However, 10 other frigates and destroyers are presently at sea on other tasks, such as exercises and training, without their Lynx helicopters.

  Typhoon Aircraft
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what air interception capability will exist for Royal Air Force Typhoon aircraft upon the exhaustion of the aircraft's air to air missile armament. [121676]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: None. However, it is unlikely that a cannon would be of use in such a scenario as the risk would remain that aircraft could be engaged by missiles from well outside the gun's range.

  Property Procurement
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much was spent by each service and Ministry of Defence agency on new buildings and land in each of the past three years; [121597]
  96W
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 27 March 2000, Official Report, column 27W, on property procurement, if he will list the new buildings, with a value greater than £100,000, procured by his Department in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99, indicating their cost and location. [121610]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the Mauser 27mm cannon specified for the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft will be installed in aircraft of Tranche 1 of the production programme for the Royal Air Force; [121683]

  (2) if the Royal Air Force will procure Mauser 27mm cannon to fit to its Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft with a corresponding stock of spares and ammunition. [121677]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: The Mauser 27mm cannon will be installed in Tranche 1 Eurofighter aircraft for the royal Air Force. However, we are not planning to procure stocks of spares or ammunition following our decision not to use the gun, or to fit it to subsequent tranches of aircraft.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instruction he gave to the Defence Sales organisation of his Department on the inclusion of Mauser 27mm cannon in Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft for sale to the Greek Air Force. [121679]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of Defence has given no instructions to officials concerning the weapons configuration for Eurofighter sales to the Greek Air Force. This is a matter for the Greek Government and Eurofighter GmbH with which they are negotiating the sale.

  I welcome the benefits to the UK Defence Industry that the proposed sale will bring and my Department will continue to support that sale through the Defence Export Services Organisation, providing advice and assistance where we are able.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment was made of the cost effectiveness of Mauser 27mm cannon armament for the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft of the Royal Air Force in(a) airspace policing in peacetime and (b) ground attack missions. [121678]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: We have assessed that the minimal operational utility of the Mauser cannon on Eurofighter in any role is outweighed by its support, fatigue and training cost implications, particularly given the capability of the advanced short-range air-to-air missiles with which the aircraft will be armed.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits of commonality of armament and interoperability for the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft in the four nation production programme. [121682]
  97W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: Potential benefits in commonality and interoperability between the four partner nations are a fundamental consideration when taking decisions on the Eurofighter programme.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what combat advantages will be derived for Royal Air Force Typhoon aircraft from the elimination of the Mauser 27mm cannon not possessed by the equivalent gun equipped aircraft in service with the Italian, German and Spanish air forces. [121684]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: The advantages in deleting the Mauser cannon from our Eurofighter aircraft derive from avoiding the support, fatigue and cost implications which we would otherwise have to bear. These implications more than outweigh the minimal combat value in retaining the gun, particularly given the advanced short-range air-to-air missiles with which Eurofighter will be armed.

  Iraq
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if RAF aircraft have used cluster bombs against targets in the(a) southern and (b) northern Iraq no-fly zones. [122230]

  Mr. Hoon
  No.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Millennium Summit
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what preparations her Department is making for the UN Millennium Summit in September. [121517]

  Clare Short
  The Millennium Summit will be an important opportunity for the world's leaders to put the International Development Targets for poverty elimination at the top of the international agenda. The emphasis on poverty elimination in the Secretary General's Millennium Report provides a good starting-point for discussion of this issue at the Summit. My officials will discuss with the UN Information Centre (UNIC) in London whether there are opportunities around the Millennium Report and Summit to raise awareness in the UK of the poverty elimination agenda and the UN's role. My Department, with the FCO, is providing funding for representatives from the least developed countries to attend the Millennium Forum, which will bring together the views of civil society world-wide as a contribution to the Summit.

  Zambia
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she estimates Zambia will reach its(a) decision point and (b) completion point in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [121779]

  Clare Short
  I hope that Zambia will reach its Decision Point under the revised Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative within the next nine months. We are disappointed that only five countries have, so far, come forward under the revised Initiative, and are pleased that, as we advocated, the World bank and IMF have agreed to 98W
  set up a joint committee to oversee the implementation of HIPC. In order to reach its Decision Point and begin to receive debt relief, there are also actions that Zambia has to undertake. The Government have already begun work on developing their interim poverty reduction strategy, which I welcome. They also need to agree quickly and implement a programme of economic reform with the IMF.

  In revising the HIPC Initiative last year, it was agreed that Completion Points would be "floating", that is, the requirement would be for countries to fulfil agreed conditions, rather than reaching Completion after three years. It is too early to say, at this stage, when Zambia will reach its Completion Point. I continue to emphasise that, in our view, the main condition for a country to complete the HIPC process should be the production of a high quality poverty strategy, based on sound analysis and extensive consultation.

  Anti-drugs Measures
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will have discussions with mycologists at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh before endorsing a programme submitted by the UN International Drug Control Programme for field trials of fusarium oxysporum as a weapon against coca growing in Columbia and Peru. [121080]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not been asked either to endorse or fund the UNDCP's research into the use of fusarium oxysporum as a control agent against coca crops in Colombia. My officials have, however, discussed the planned research with mycologists widely in the UK, including at the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. I understand that UNDCP are working closely with the UN Environmental Programme to ensure that all precautions are taken and that risks are eliminated.

SCOTLAND

  Police Forces
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police forces in Scotland have the Crown as part of their(a) crest and (b) cap badge. [121463]

  Dr. Reid
  The crest of the Scottish police service incorporates the Crown. The eight Scottish police forces have a common cap badge incorporating a representation of the Scottish police service crest. Two of the eight forces (Lothian and Borders Police and Fife Constabulary) have individual crests in the form of a coat of arms granted by the Lord Lyon. Both of these also incorporate the Crown.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Regeneration
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number and value of(a) bids 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. [119801]
  99W
  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 20 April 2000]: The information is not available in the format requested for all potentially relevant initiatives. The Department has adopted a range of approaches to provide support for those individuals most affected by deprivation, because we recognise that competitive bidding is not always the most effective method. The following examples demonstrate that range:
  in the bidding process for Education Action Zones we received 60 bids for the 25 available places in the first round of Education Action Zones and 123 bids for the 50 available places in the second round for which 48 places were actually awarded. First round zones receive £750,000 in Government grant per year with the zone expected to raise a further £250,000 sponsorship from the private sector. Second round zones receive grant of £500,000 with a further £250,000 available on a pound for pound matched funding basis for every pound sponsorship raised from the private sector;
  the Neighbourhood Support Fund(NSF) will annually help at least 15,000 of the most disaffected and disengaged 13 to 19-year-olds to re-connect with education, training and employment opportunities. Between 1999–2000 and 2001–02 £60 million will be made available to support some 700 NSF projects that will test the effectiveness of a variety of approaches to re-engaging the disaffected young. Some of these do not involve competitive bidding. The individual members of the Learning Alliance (CSV, NACRO, Rathbone CI, and the YMCA), will be funding NSF projects directly via their local affiliates in the 40 target areas, at a total annual cost for projects of £2 million. The National Youth Agency (NYA), working closely with local authority youth services, will identify potential NSF projects and then select the most promising to fund. The NYA is currently processing applications for NSF support from more than 150 community/voluntary organisations, with a total value of approximately £5 million. The NYA aims to fund 80 projects per annum at a combined yearly cost of £3 million. The Community Development Foundation (CDF) has invited competitive bids from community and voluntary groups and has received more than 1,300 applications for NSF funding, with a total value of around £26 million. Some 400 projects have been approved to date. The CDF will eventually support about 600 projects, at an annual cost of £12 million;
  Excellence in Cities(EiC) is not a traditional bidding programme. Forty-seven local authorities, responsible for city schools, have been invited to become part of the programme and are guaranteed funding provided they meet quality assessment thresholds;
  the approach for establishing Employment Zones involved an open and competitive bidding process to run a commercial operation where bids were assessed, against published criteria, by independent consultants;
  to support early years education, we are making specific grants available to Local Education Authorities (from September 1999–March 2002) to almost double the number of three year olds in early education places. While this new money is not geared towards any regeneration initiatives it is being targeted on those children with greatest social need. This money does not form part of any bidding process.

  Barristers (Disability)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what recent representations he has received regarding the exclusion of barristers from the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; [120782]

  (2) what plans he has to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to include barristers; and if he will make a statement. [120781]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 8 May 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a report on 13 December 1999 from the Disability Rights Task Force,
  100W
  set up by the Government to consult and advise on how to implement comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. In its final report, the Task Force made over 150 recommendations. On 13 December, my right hon. Friend announced that the Government would be bringing forward legislation to give effect to the education recommendations of the Task Force. On 30 March, the Government issued an interim response to the report's recommendations in the areas of local government, health and social services, housing, the environment and participation in public life.

  Also on 30 March, I informed the House in a written reply that the Government are still considering a number of the recommendations that would require legislative changes to the DDA. One such recommendation is that the employment provisions of civil rights legislation should cover barristers. The Government's final response to the report will be made in due course.

  Employment and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the outcome of the Social Affairs Council held in Brussels on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [121570]

  Ms Jowell
  I represented the UK at the Employment and Social Affairs Council held in Brussels on 8 May. There were two items on the agenda: the Broad Economic Guidelines 2000 (BEGs), prepared by Economic and Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) in accordance with Article 99 of the Treaties establishing the European Community; and Article 13 (non-discrimination).

  In the discussion on the Broad Economic Guidelines, the UK supported the emphasis on structural reform, but argued that more attention should be given to tackling social exclusion. The Presidency undertook to write to ECOFIN summarising the views of the Employment and Social Affairs Council and said that he had received an assurance that ECOFIN would not be invited to finalise its draft of the BEGs until it had received the views of the Council.

  The Presidency reported on the negotiations on the two proposed Directives and the action programme brought forward under Article 13(non-discrimination). The Presidency noted that a number of issues remained to be resolved but hoped to register progress at the SAC on 6 June.

  Supply Teachers (Jury Service Cover)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to reimburse schools who have to engage supply teachers temporarily to replace teachers who are absent on jury service; and if he will make a statement. [121729]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department has no plans to reimburse schools for any costs incurred in covering teachers who serve on juries. The arrangements for paid and unpaid leave for jury service are determined under teachers local contracts of employment.

  Homophobia Video
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in how many schools the video, "Beyond a Phase: A Practical Guide to Challenging Homophobia in Schools", is available. [121968]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not hold this information. I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave on 14 April 2000,Official Report, column 297W.

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which relocation companies his Department has used when relocating civil servants since May 1997. [122294]

  Mr. Wills
  During the period in question, the Department has used only one relocation company, Cendant Relocation (UK) Ltd.

  New Deal
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many New Deal places have been(a) offered, (b) taken up and (c) completed in his Department since the start of the New Deal. [122231]

  Mr. Wills
  I can confirm that in response to(a) a total of 54 individuals have been offered New Deal placements in my Department, of whom (b) 44 have taken up the offer and in response to (c) a total of 8 placements have been completed.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many New Deal places have been(a) offered, (b) taken up and (c) completed within Leeds City Council since the start of the New Deal. [122228]

  Ms Jowell
  From April 1998 to May 2000 no New Deal clients have been directly employed by Leeds City Council on the Employment Option.

  Groundwork manages the New Deal ESF option in Leeds. Leeds City Council run the ETF programme for Groundwork. Since April 1998, 127 New Deal clients have started the Council's ETF option. Some of these will subsequently have started work for LCC—but the Employment Service does not have details of those engaged or specific numbers.

  Universities (ICT Funding)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the costs of upgrading the existing IT structure within the universities to allow individual academics access to JANET 4, broken down by research council. [122136]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have allocated approximately £150 million to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) for capital investment in information and communications technology over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02. The improvement in the backbone to the JANET network, SuperJANET4, is being met from top-sliced funding from all the HE Funding Councils, of which HEFCE's contribution is £40 million. Individual higher education institutions and research 102W
  councils wanting to enhance their local area networks to exploit the extra bandwidth available will need to fund this from within their annual grant allocation.

  Press Officers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Press Officers were in post in his Department in(a) May 1997 and (b) May 2000. [121954]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 12 May 2000]: At the beginning of May 1997 there were 20 Press Officers in post at the Department for Education and Employment, serving six Ministers. There are currently 27 Press Officers in post, serving eight Ministers.

  School Inspections
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment was made of the ability of Salter Baker Associates (Education) Ltd. to meet Ofsted's quality assurance standards following an audit of the company in summer 1999; and what was the date of the assessment; [121791]

  (2) if he will list the documents received by Ofsted from Salter Baker Associates (Education) Ltd. in August 1999; [121792]

  (3) on what grounds and on what date Ofsted decided to terminate 14 inspection contracts with Salter Baker Associates (Education) Ltd., in 1999; [121795]

  (4) what steps were taken by Ofsted to ensure that matters of concern raised during its quality assurance audit of Salter Baker Associates (Education) Ltd. were addressed prior to the awarding of inspection contracts for autumn 1999; [121796]

  (5) what concerns were recorded by the Ofsted Contracts Division during their quality assurance audit of Salter Baker Associates (Education) Ltd., in summer 1999; [121797]

  (6) what steps are being taken by the Contracts Division of Ofsted to ensure that companies undertaking inspections facilitate checks on their financial viability; [121798]

  (7) what discussions he has had with Ofsted on measures needed to monitor the financial viability of companies undertaking school inspections; and if he will make a statement. [121799]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]: These are matters for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Connexions Service
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the locations of the pilot projects for the Connexions Service; and if he will make a statement. [120848]

  Mr. Wicks
  I am pleased to announce the extension of the Connexions Service pilots. New pilots are to be established in Durham, Hertfordshire, Central London, Oldham, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, and at the
  103W
  Huntercombe Young Offenders Institution in Oxfordshire. These are additional to the pilots announced by the Secretary of State on 3 February.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2000,Official Report, column 563W, on Connexions, how many persons are employed in the National Unit of the Connexions Service in (a) London, (b) Sheffield and (c) elsewhere; how many of them are from (i) Government Departments, (ii) youth and voluntary work and (iii) the private sector; and what is the timetable for employing more persons in the National Unit. [122473]

  Mr. Wicks
  The structure of the Connexions National Unit will be for the new Chief Executive to determine. We expect a new Chief Executive to take up post and make decisions on the staffing complement of the National Unit by late summer.

  Youth Services (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money was spent by his Department on youth services in the London Borough of Wandsworth in the last year for which figures are available. [122388]

  Mr. Wicks
  My Department does not fund Wandsworth's youth service. Youth service funding is provided centrally from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to each local authority. In 1997–98, the latest confirmed figures taken from the local authority returns (R01), Wandsworth spent £2,958,000 on its youth service.

  Learning Gateway
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the 16 and 17-year-olds in the Learning Gateway have entered learning and training. [122349]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Learning Gateway provides a client-centred approach, based on one-to-one support from a Personal Adviser, for 16 and 17-year-olds who have drifted away from learning and need additional help to enter mainstream learning opportunities. The Learning Gateway was introduced in September 1999. At the end of March 2000, some 17,500 young people had joined and over 11,000 were still on it. Around 3,500 (60 per cent. of leavers) were known to have progressed to a mainstream education or training opportunity or found a job—an encouraging start for a new initiative dealing with a particularly disadvantaged client group. The Learning Gateway has a key role to play in the development of the Connexions Service—the new youth support service for 13 to 19-year-olds, which will be phased in from April 2001.

TREASURY

  Tobacco Taxation
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money he expects the increased tobacco taxation to raise for expenditure on the NHS in the next three 104W
  financial years; and if his expenditure projections for the NHS will be sustained irrespective of the yield from tobacco taxation. [120609]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 May 2000]: Table A.13 in the Financial Statement and Budget Report gives the projected Exchequer yields from the 5 per cent. real increase in tobacco duty announced in Budget 2000. The Budget 2000 expenditure projections for the NHS are from plans which the Government will deliver.

  Funding (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received from the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Objective 1 match funding and the Comprehensive Spending Review; [121736]

  (2) what representations he has received from the (a) First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and (b) Secretary of State for Wales with relation to (i) the Comprehensive Spending Review and (ii) this year's Comprehensive Spending Review and Objective 1 match funding. [121737]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There have been a number of representations on the 2000 spending review and Objective 1 funding. The implications for the Welsh block arising from Objective 1 funding are currently being considered as part of the Government's Spending Review which is now under way.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he received from the National Assembly for Wales in relation to this year's Comprehensive Spending Review. [121735]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A number of representations have been received in relation to the 2000 spending review. The outcome of the review will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make available to the National Assembly for Wales, for capital expenditure projects in the industrial and social infrastructure, a population-based share of the sum the Treasury receives as a result of the sale of mobile telephone franchises. [121924]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The receipts from the sale of mobile phone licenses are a UK resource which will be used to reduce net debt. The resulting reduction in the burden of public debt will benefit all parts of the UK for many years to come.

  Debt Relief
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the cancellation of third world debt is on the agenda at the G8 Summit in Okinawa. [121766]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer have informed the Japanese Presidency of the G7/8 that we would like to use the opportunity of the Okinawa summit, and the meetings of G7 Finance Ministers running up to the summit, to review and encourage progress on the debt relief initiatives.

  Penalty Clauses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the contracts entered into with private sector companies for the provision of goods or services since May 1997 where penalty clauses were triggered for non-performance; and if he will make a statement. [122018]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since May 1997, the Treasury has not had a contract that has triggered liquidated damages/penalty clauses.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he intends to ensure that the climate change levy is revenue neutral in the long term for those industries and individual companies to which it is to be applied; and if he will make a statement. [122126]

  Mr. Timms
  As the Chancellor stated when the climate change levy was first proposed, the levy package is designed to be revenue neutral for the private sector. Moreover, the levy package is expected to be broadly neutral between services and manufacturing, in that the Government expect manufacturing and services each to pay broadly as much in the levy as they get back via the 0.3 per cent. NICs reduction and the additional support for energy efficiency measures. The Government do not intend to make the levy revenue neutral for each firm or sector, however. As Lord Marshall stated in his report "Economic Instruments and the Business Use of Energy", the design of the levy should ensure some incentive for all users to save energy at the margin.

  As with excise duties, the Government expect that the rates of the levy will keep pace with inflation over time. The value of the NIC reductions to business is also expected to increase over time.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make an early announcement of financial incentives for the emissions trading scheme for firms taking on binding emissions targets as part of the climate change levy; and if he will make a statement. [122125]

  Mr. Timms
  Emissions trading will provide a flexible way in which sectors involved in negotiated agreements as part of the climate change levy can meet their individual energy efficiency targets.

  In addition, the Government are working closely with the business-led UK Emissions Trading Group (ETG) on the development of a wider emissions trading scheme, and have said that they see merit in the case put forward by the ETG that some form of financial incentive will be required for companies to take on binding emission targets that generate additional emission reductions. Issues being addressed include the links between the wider trading scheme and the negotiated agreements; and the form a financial incentive might take. Further announcements will depend on the progress the ETG and the Government can make in dealing with these outstanding issues.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will hypothecate the proceeds from privatisations, semi-privatisations and outsourcing of services for the purpose of increasing the level of the basic pension. [122105]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]: No. The Government will be spending an additional £6.5 billion on pensioners over the course of this Parliament, £2.5 billion more than if the basic state pension had been increased in line with earnings. We are helping all pensioners, but targeting help on those who have lost out over the last 20 years. Over half of these additional resources are going to 3 million of Britain's poorest pensioners. As a result of all our measures, including the introduction and uprating of the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings, raising the winter fuel payment to £150 and the introduction of free TV licences for pensioners aged over 75, the poorest pensioners over 75 will be up to £950 better off in cash terms than in 1997.

  The Government make their spending decisions based on what is affordable within the prudent control of the public finances. In general, the Government believe that how money is raised should not determine how it is spent, and spending priorities are best determined in the round. The Chancellor's recent Budget continued to build a platform of economic stability from which to deliver high and stable levels of growth and employment, while releasing substantial new resources for its key priorities, including extra support for pensioners.

  Insurance Brokers Registration Act 1977
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to take steps to repeal the Insurance Brokers Registration Act 1977. [R] [122168]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In response to a request from the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, the Government have decided that the repeal of this Act will take effect on 30 April 2001.

  Institutional Investment
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on the review of institutional investment by Mr. Paul Myners. [122716]

  Mr. Timms
  A consultation document is being launched by Paul Myners today, and will be available on the Treasury website (hm-treasury.gov.uk). Printed copies will be available tomorrow, and will be placed in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Commission (Nice Proposals)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the President of the European Commission to discuss proposals to be agreed at Nice. [120886]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I meet the President of the Commission regularly, including at the monthly meetings of the General Affairs Council.
  107W
  We expect two main issues for agreement at the Nice European Council. First, the agreement to reform of the European Union to prepare it for enlargement, on which we share with France the key objective of securing a reweighting of votes in favour of larger members. Secondly, conclusion of the arrangements for the European Security Initiative, on which France has been our partner since we launched it jointly at St. Malo. The French Presidency is also mandated to take forward the conclusions of the Lisbon European Summit, at which Britain secured Europe's commitment to our agenda of economic reform and full employment.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with Governments in the north Caucasus regarding the situation in Chechnya. [120887]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have regular discussions with the Russian Government on Chechnya, most recently when Mr. Putin visited London on 17 April, during a telephone conversation on 27 March, and during my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to St. Petersburg on 11 March. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised Chechnya during his visit to Moscow on 22/23 February and expects to discuss it again tomorrow when he returns to Moscow for official talks.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the proposed gift of public money to fund the acquisition of white-owned farms in Zimbabwe. [120889]

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to assist the holding of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [120893]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest contacts with the Government of Zimbabwe. [120898]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friends to the oral answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown),Official Report, column 131.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. [122003]

  Mr. Hain
  We note the recent statement by the Zimbabwe Electoral Supervisory Commission that free and fair elections could not be held under conditions of mounting political violence which has killed at least 19 people in the past three months. We have called all along for a fair election, free from political intimidation. It is not too late for President Mugabe to restore an environment conducive to free and fair elections.
  108W
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had regarding independent monitoring of elections in Zimbabwe with(a) the Commonwealth, (b) the European Union, (c) the United Nations and (d) other organisations. [122002]

  Mr. Hain
  We are working closely with the Commonwealth, EU, UN and other partners to ensure that international election observers are deployed to Zimbabwe as soon as possible, and in sufficient numbers to allow them to observe the pre-election preparations and to speak authoritatively on the conduct of the poll.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the action being taken to agree the presence in Zimbabwe of election, human rights and democracy observers including those from the Organisation of African Unity and the EU. [122268]

  Mr. Hain
  The Commonwealth Secretary-General and a team of experts and a team from the European Commission are visiting Zimbabwe to prepare for the deployment of Commonwealth and EU observers. We are in touch with the OAU but do not yet have details of its plans.

  Indonesia
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the Government are giving to the Government of Indonesia to help them combat the problems of ethnic conflict. [120890]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I raised the issue of ethnic tension when I met President Wahid in February. We fully support his efforts to secure stability in the areas of conflict and we welcome signature in Geneva at the weekend of a ceasefire in Aceh. Britain has already funded initiatives to promote reconciliation in Maluku and we are fully supporting the efforts of the United Nations Development Programme in the region. We are ready to help in any realistic and sensible way in reducing ethnic tensions and violence.

  Middle East
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of when the peace accords between(a) the Palestinian Authority and Israel, (b) Lebanon and Israel and (c) Syria and Israel will be signed; and if he will make a statement. [120891]

  Mr. Hain
  I have just returned from Syria and the Lebanon and we continue to work hard to achieve success in the Middle East Peace Process which is at an important stage.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his current assessment is of the middle east peace process. [120905]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the oral answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey),Official Report, column 146.

  Anglo-Swiss Relations
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Swiss relations. [120892]

  Mr. Vaz
  UK/Swiss relations are excellent and Switzerland is an important trading partner for the UK.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the application of Cyprus to join the European Union. [120894]

  Mr. Vaz
  Cyprus's accession negotiations with the European Union have covered 25 of the 31 chapters of the acquis communautaire, comprising the rights and obligations of EU membership. The remainder will be opened this year. Fifteen chapters do not need further negotiation at this stage—the greatest number for any candidate.

  The EU's objective is accession, following a political settlement, of a united Cyprus to the EU. It would clearly be easier for the united island to accede to the EU. But the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 agreed that a settlement is not a precondition for accession. We fully support the UN proximity talks preparing for a comprehensive settlement, which are due to resume shortly in New York.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Turkish Prime Minister on his recent statement about Cyprus; and if he will make a statement on that statement. [121932]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign Secretary has had no recent discussions with the Turkish Prime Minister on the subject of Cyprus. However, we maintain regular contact with the Turkish Government in the context of the current UN settlement process and continue to urge all parties involved to cooperate with the UN Secretary-General constructively and flexibly.

  Central America (Street Children)
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received relating to street children in central America. [120896]

  Mr. Hain
  Most of the reports relate to Guatemala and Honduras. The latest were about the murders of two 17-year-old Honduran boys.

  We follow this issue with interest and concern, and regularly make representations to Central American authorities. We maintain regular contact with NGOs active on street children issues.

  We are active in helping to alleviate the suffering of street children. The FCO is today hosting the Americas Open Day as part of the String of Pearls Millennium Festival. This will include a live world-wide internet broadcast on Street Children in Central America alongside "Toybox" a UK charity we support in Guatemala: A first for the FCO.

  Franco-British Co-operation
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Franco-British co-operation in international affairs. [120899]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK and France have achieved a great deal since the UK/French Summits at St. Malo in December 1998 and in London in November 1999, which committed both Governments to strengthening their foreign policy cooperation. In addition to our joint work on the European defence initiative, we have worked together closely on Africa, the Middle East, the Western Balkans and on UN issues.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the outcome of the non-proliferation treaty review conference in New York. [120900]

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the non-proliferation treaty review conference. [120909]

  Mr. Hain
  The Review Conference runs until 19 May. The UK delegation will continue to work for a positive outcome to the Conference which will advance the goal of nuclear disarmament.

  UN Security Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is in relation to increasing the number of permanent members of the UN Security Council. [120901]

  Mr. Hain
  We believe early enlargement of the UN Security Council is essential to make it more representative of today's world.

  We support expansion of the Council from 15 members to 24 including five additional permanent seats: two for Germany and Japan plus three for developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

  New Zealand Prime Minister (State Visit)
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit to the UK of the Prime Minister of New Zealand. [120902]

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit to the UK of the Prime Minister of New Zealand. [120907]

  Mr. Battle
  Helen Clark visited the UK on 18 and 19 April. She had very productive discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and with other senior colleagues. I also had the opportunity to meet her briefly. We attach great importance to maintaining our excellent and close relationship with the government of New Zealand, and were delighted to see Ms Clark here so soon in to her term of office.

  Italy
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had with the new Government of Italy. [120903]

  Mr. Vaz
  The new Italian Government were approved by the Italian Parliament on 28 April. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Italian Foreign Minister Lamberto Dini at the gathering of EU foreign ministers held under the Portuguese presidency in the Azores 5–6 May.

  St. George's and Europe Days
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how his Department's establishments(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas marked (i) St. George's day and (ii) Europe day. [120904]

  Mr. Vaz
  The FCO does not officially mark St. George's day (or St. David's or St. Andrew's Day). Nor do we issue guidance to our missions overseas, which represent the interests of all the United Kingdom.

  On Europe Day, the FCO and missions overseas fly the EU flag alongside the Union Jack. This year, for the first time, the FCO also hosted a Europe Open Day on 9 May to coincide with the London String of Pearls Millennium Festival. Some of our missions overseas also contributed to Europe Day events organised by their host Governments and the local offices of the European Commission.

  International Drugs Trade
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government on tackling the international drugs trade. [120906]

  Mr. Battle
  UK counter-drugs activity overseas aims to reduce the availability of Class A drugs in the UK. Progress, achieved through co-ordinated inter-Departmental activity on agreed priorities, is being seen in increased seizures of heroin and cocaine en route to the UK/EU, and increased disruption of the criminal groups involved in trafficking. The UK is also active in international forums aimed at strengthening the global framework for tackling the illicit drugs trade, including in the UN and G8. In the financial year 1999–2000 my Department spent £6.7 million on anti-drugs projects overseas.

  Peru
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent Peruvian presidential elections. [120908]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK has played a leading role in calling for higher standards in the Peruvian electoral process, commissioning election campaign reports and providing and financing electoral observers. We welcomed the announcement of the second round on 28 May, and continue to press for opposition access to the media, proper use of state resources and avoidance of the irregularities of the first round.

  Stability Pact
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on implementation of the Stability Pact for south-east Europe. [120879]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government are pleased with the progress of the Stability Pact for south-east Europe. I represented Britain at the regional funding conference on 29 March, at which 1.8 billion euro was sought to fund quick start projects in the region. In the event, 2.4 billion euro was pledged. The UK has played a leading role in the Pact, reflecting our position as a key contributor to stability in the Balkans.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in respect of "IGC: Reform for Enlargement", Cm 4595, how many copies were printed; what the cost per copy was to the Government; what the sale price was; how many were distributed free and to whom; if he will estimate the cost per copy to the Government and the sale price if it had been in black and white only; and for what reasons he did not print it in that form. [121038]

  Mr. Vaz
  1,500 copies were printed. The cost per the copy to Government was £7.40 and the sale price £11.10. Numerous copies were distributed free of charge to opinion formers and members of the public. The cost per copy of a black and white version would have been £4.47, with a sale price of £6.70.

  We decided to publish the White Paper in colour in order to make the material clearer and more accessible to the public.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to "IGC: Reform for Enlargement, Cm 4595", which proposals under discussion in respect of the Enlargement Treaty planned for consideration at Nice in December would require amendment of Acts of Parliament; and when the proposed treaty will be published. [121078]

  Mr. Vaz
  We hope that the intergovernmental conference negotiations currently underway will be concluded by the end of the year. It is too early to say what the result of those negotiations will be, but the outcome will require ratification by Parliament.

  Danube
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the Bulgarian and Romanian Governments on(a) removal of obstacles on the Danube and (b) the rehabilitation of ports on the Danube. [121757]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Bulgarian and Romanian Prime Ministers wrote to their EU and NATO counterparts on 5 April setting out their concerns at the slow progress of the Danube Commission's proposal to the European Commission for clearance of the River Danube. The Danube Commission's proposal does, however, have a number of technical issues on which the EU requires detailed clarification.
  113W
  Neither government have raised the question of rehabilitation of ports on the Danube, though both have expressed concern at mounting unemployment along the Danube as a result of the halt in river traffic through Serbia.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the cost of(a) clearance of the Danube and (b) building a new bridge on the Danube in Novi Sad. [121771]

  Mr. Vaz
  The estimated cost of clearing the Danube, as set out in the Danube Commission's proposal to the European Commission of 25 January 2000, is 24.1 million euro.

  We have made no estimate of the cost of rebuilding a new bridge over the Danube at Novi Sad. We understand that both the Serbian government and the Novi Sad local municipal authorities have announced separate plans to build a replacement bridge at Novi Sad.

  Japanese Emperor (State Visit)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department met the Metropolitan police to discuss the security arrangements for the State Visit of Emperor Akihito of Japan in May 1998. [121718]

  Mr. Battle
  Meetings involving Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and the police in advance of the State Visit by the Emperor of Japan were held on the following dates: 15, 26 and 29 January and 6 and 8 February 1998. The purpose of these meetings was not to take operational decisions, but to go through successive drafts of the programme and discuss new programme proposals.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will release the minutes of discussions his Department held about the security arrangements which were taken for the State Visit of Emperor Akihito of Japan in May 1998. [121719]

  Mr. Battle
  Minutes were not taken because the purpose of these meetings was not to take operational decisions, but to go through successive drafts of the programme and discuss new programme proposals. Any outcome of the discussions was subsequently reflected in revised programmes.

  EU and NATO
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and at what level the EU consultation and co-operation mechanism with NATO will be set up. [121753]

  Mr. Vaz
  The United Kingdom is fully involved in the continuing discussions to ensure the best means of providing full mutual consultation, co-operation and transparency between the EU and NATO. The Presidency will report on progress to the European Council at Feira on 19–20 June.

  European Security
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how and at what stage 114W
  non-EU members will be involved with the shaping and implementation of EU decisions concerning European Security and Defence Identity and ESDP. [121754]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Portuguese EU Presidency will report on progress to the European Council at Feira between 19–20 June on the mechanisms for involving non-EU European countries in military crisis management.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence has been provided since May 1994 to Governments of states against which British nuclear weapons were hitherto targeted that they are no longer so targeted. [121931]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have given a number of key public assurances that our nuclear weapons are not targeted at any state, most recently as part of the common statement made by the nuclear weapons states on 1 May 2000 in New York at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

  China
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning the persecution of House Church leaders in China. [122234]

  Mr. Battle
  We follow the situation concerning the House Church Christian leaders in China closely. The treatment of Li Dexian, who has been detained on a number of occasions, most recently on 11 April, is a particular concern. We raised his case during the fourth round of the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue in Beijing in February, and I have also raised this case more recently with the Chinese Ambassador. We also pressed the Chinese authorities to facilitate the freedom of religious practice in line with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which China signed in October 1998. We will continue to press our concerns with the Chinese authorities at every appropriate opportunity including future rounds of the UK and EU Human Rights Dialogues

  Handcuff Exports
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the serial numbers of those Big Brutus handcuffs exported from the United Kingdom by Hyatt & Co., of Birmingham, since 1 May 1997; when he expects legislation further restricting the sale of oversize handcuffs to be brought forward; and if he will make a statement. [121803]

  Mr. Hain
  Neither FCO nor DTI has the information requested. Serial numbers are not routinely requested from, or supplied by, companies as part of the export licensing process.

  I refer the hon. member to the answer I gave him on 10 March 2000, Official Report, column 873W. We are not aware of any illegal conduct on the part of UK individuals or companies. Should any evidence be produced, we would of course pass it on to the appropriate investigative authorities.
  115W
  The Government are still considering amending legislation to extend controls to cover large individual cuffs.

  Strategic Arms Exports
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government's response to the Joint Select Committee report on Strategic Arms Exports will be completed. [122290]

  Mr. Hain
  We regret the delay in responding to the Report of the joint inquiry conducted by the Foreign Affairs, Defence, Trade and Industry and International Development Committees into the 1997 and 1998 Annual Reports on strategic export controls and aims to do so as soon as possible.

  The Report contained a large number of complex recommendations for specific action, which were of interest to several Departments. It has taken longer to formulate a response than would normally be the case.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Records
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what response the Secretary to the Advisory Council on Public Records has made to those hon. Members who have asked the Council whether Public Records Act Instrument 12, 1996, permits the Keeper of Public Records to allow constituents to inspect and copy the 1911 decennial census returns for England and Wales; and on which dates since January 1998 the full Council has met under the Chairmanship of the Master of the Rolls to consider similar requests from hon. Members; [121836]

  (2) how many hon. Members have written since January to the Chairman of the Advisory Council on Public Records, requesting the Council to consider whether Public Records Act Instrument 12, 1996, permits the Keeper of Public Records to allow their constituents to inspect and copy the 1911 decennial census returns for England and Wales; and what advice the Chairman has given to those hon. Members on the legal issues involved. [121835]

  Mr. Lock
  The full Advisory Council considered the subject of access to the 1911 census returns on one occasion since January 1998 namely, on 22 October 1998.

  The Master of the Rolls, as Chairman of the Advisory Council on Public Records, has received 15 letters from hon. Members since January 1998 concerning access to the 1911 census returns.

  The answer sent to hon. Members by the Secretary to the Advisory Council on Public Records, at the request of the Master of the Rolls, is annexed.

  On 3 April 2000 the Secretary consulted all members of the Council by post, asking them whether they wished the subject to be put on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council in June. Members approved the line taken in the responses to hon. Members and none requested that the subject be considered again by the full Council
  116W Access to Census Records from 1901 and 1911
  The Master of the Rolls has asked me to thank you for your letter of ****, and to reply on his behalf. He has seen and approved the contents of this letter.
  I think that your constituent has been briefed by Mr. Denis McCready, who has for some years been campaigning about access to the census records. Mr. McCready himself appealed to the Council on this issue, and the Council considered his appeal on 22 October 1998. I shall set out below the background, then explain the Council's position.
  The Public Records Act 1958, as amended by the Public Records Act 1967, specifies the normal term for the closure of public records, and the procedure for changing that period, as follows:
  Public records in the Public Record Office…shall not be available for public inspection until the expiration of the period of thirty years beginning with the first day of January in the year next after that in which they were created, or of such other period, either longer or shorter, as the Lord Chancellor may, with the approval, or at the request, of the Minister or other person, if any, who appears to him to be primarily concerned, for the time being prescribe as respects any particular class of public records. (c5(1))
  It is thus the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor and (in the case of the Office for National Statistics, for census records) the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to decide whether and for what period the normal thirty year term will be varied. The Lord Chancellor always seeks the advice of the Council before making such a decision. Neither the Master of the Rolls (as the Council's chairman) nor the Keeper of the Public Records has any authority in the matter, so neither has the power unilaterally to release closed records.
  In a Schedule to an Instrument signed by Lord Gardiner, the Lord Chancellor, on 20 June 1966 all decennial census returns were closed for 100 years. I enclose a copy of the Schedule. Mr. McCready has suggested that this schedule is invalid because it does not specify the "class" of records, as required by s5(1) of the Act. Mr. McCready is using the term "class" in its technical sense in the Public Record Office where it has until recently meant a particular series of records identified by letters and a number (such as AIR 21 on the same schedule). However, as you know, the interpretation of an Act of Parliament depends on definitions contained within the Act (there is none for "class" in the Public Records Act), the Interpretation Act, or normal dictionaries. The word "class" in the Act should thus be understood to have its normal meaning of a category, such as (in this instance) "Decennial Census Returns".
  Mr. McCready has also pointed out that no undertaking of closure for 100 years was given to individuals when the 1901 and 1911 censuses were taken, and suggested that this means that there could be no breach of confidence by releasing them after a shorter period. The Home Secretary on 26 October 1998 in a Written Answer to a Parliamentary Question gave the terms of the undertakings of confidentiality stated on the 1901, 1911 and later census schedules (Hansard cols 55–6). That on the 1901 schedule reads:
  The Return is required for carrying out the provisions of the Census Act. The contents of the Schedules will be treated as confidential; they will be published in General Abstract only. and strict care will be taken that the Returns are not used for the gratification of curiosity, or for other purposes than those of the Census.
  Those for 1911 read, on the front and on the back of the schedule:
  The contents of the Schedule will be treated as strictly confidential.
  The contents of the Schedule will be treated as confidential. Strict care will be taken that no information is disclosed with regard to individual persons. The returns are not to be used…for any other purpose than the preparation of Statistical Tables.

  117W
  In 1981, the Government for the first time spelt out on the census schedules the period that it considered would need to pass before the duty of confidence owed as a result of such undertakings would be discharged:
  Your replies will be treated in strict confidence. After the census, the forms will be locked away for 100 years before they are passed to the Public Record Office.
  In answer to Parliamentary Questions the Government has reiterated that it considers that 100 years is the period which should pass before the duty of confidence is discharged. In a written answer to Lord Teviot in the House of Lords on 14 October 1997, the Lord Chancellor said that:
  the maintenance of public confidence in the census is paramount. It would be unwise to amend retrospectively the period of closure as the credibility of assurances about recent and future censuses would be affected if the Government is seen to be departing from previous assurances.

  Schedule

  Number of class

  Description

  Person whose approval has been given

  Prescribed period Years

  War Office

  W.0. 71

  Judge Advocate General's Office—Courts Martial: Proceedings

  Secretary of State for Defence

  100

  W.0. 160

  War of 1914–18: Special Series

  Secretary of State for Defence

  100

  Air Ministry

  Air 18

  Judge Advocate General's Office—Courts Martial: Proceedings

  Secretary of State for Defence

  100

  Air 21

  Judge Advocate General's Office—Courts Martial: Registers

  Secretary of State for Defence

  100

  Registrar General

  R.G.

  Decennial Census Returns

  Registrar General

  100

  Penalty Clauses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the contracts entered into with private sector companies for the provision of goods or services since May 1997 where penalty clauses were triggered for non-performance; and if he will make a statement. [122020]

  Mr. Lock
  Of the contracts entered into by the Lord Chancellor's Department since May 1997, only that with CSL Group Ltd. has triggered penalty payments.

  Family Law
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the whole of the Family Law Act 1996 will be operational; and what additional costs the Government will incur as a result. [121721]

  Jane Kennedy
  Parts I, III and IV of the Family Law Act 1996, with the exception of section 60, are already in force. In relation to Part II of the Act, I refer the hon. Member to the written parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on 17 June 1999,Official Report, column 213W. The position remains the same.

  Section 60 of the Act permits the making of Rules of Court to allow third parties to apply for orders under Part IV on behalf of victims of domestic violence. The Government are currently considering whether it is appropriate to implement the provisions of section 60. The cost implications of implementation will be considered as part of this process.
  118W The present Government therefore adheres to the guidelines, set out in the previous Government's White Paper Open Government of 1993 (Cm 2290), for determining the extended closure of records (annex C, p 90). These specify that records of the decennial census of population are to be closed for 100 years.The Council concluded in October 1998 that the Government's grounds for the closure of the census records were valid, but that it might be possible to overcome the problem for future generations by giving a lesser commitment in forthcoming censuses. It therefore decided not to ask the Lord Chancellor to initiate any reconsideration of the matter, and informed Mr. McCready of its views. As you will appreciate, in the absence of any change in policy by ministers there was nothing that the Council could ask the Master of the Rolls or Keeper to do. There has been no change since 1998 that would justify asking the Council to reconsider, and so far as the 1901 census is concerned the records will become open at the beginning of 2002 in any case, in a searchable digital format that has been widely welcomed by genealogical bodies.

  Judgments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions since May 1997 he has had cause(a) to reprimand or (b) take other action about the length of time taken by a judge to deliver judgment following the end of the trial. [121716]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor, as Head of the Judiciary, deals with allegations of judicial misconduct. There have been two occasions where retrials have been necessary because of judicial delay. The Lord Chancellor decided in both to make ex gratia awards of compensation in respect of costs incurred. On both occasions the Judge had resigned or retired.

  On a third occasion the Lord Chancellor agreed with the Lord Chief Justice that a Judge should be released from sitting to enable him to complete a number of outstanding judgments. On a fourth occasion the Vice Chancellor issued a rebuke and warning following a delay which was severely criticised by the Court of Appeal. The Lord Chancellor wrote to the Judge, supporting the Vice Chancellor's action.

  The Lord Chancellor and the senior judiciary are working to put systems in place to ensure that if there is any possibility of undue delay in the delivery of a judgment, that it is identified early and remedial action taken.

  Michael Abatan
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will call for a report on the recent trial in Hove relating to the
  119W
  assault on Michael Abatan in Brighton in January 1999, in particular the evidence directed to be withheld from the jury. [122479]

  Jane Kennedy
  The conduct of trials rests entirely in the hands of the judiciary, and the directions they give are based on representations made by the prosecution and defence counsel. It would be inappropriate to call for a report as the judiciary are independent of the Government and administration.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioner Savings
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the percentage of pensioner households with savings of(a) up to £1,000, (b) between £1,000 and £3,000, (c) between £3,000 and £6,000, (d) between £6,000 and £12,000 and (e) over £12,000. [122235]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Savings

  Percentage of pensioner benefit units

  Up to £1,000

  38

  Between £1,000 and £3,000

  11

  Between £3,000 and £6,000

  10

  Between £6,000 and £12,000

  11

  Over £12,000

  29

  Notes

  1. Components may not sum to 100 per cent. owing to rounding.

  2. Pensioner benefit units are defined as those benefit units where either the head or spouse is aged 60 or over.

  3. Questions on assets are a sensitive part of the FRS questionnaire and have relatively low levels of response, hence higher levels of imputation, compared to other parts of the survey. Responses are imputed in around one in 10 cases. Evidence also suggests some under-reporting of capital by respondents.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1998–99.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women were in receipt of a state retirement pension and were over 100 years old on 1 May. [122076]

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

  The latest population projections for those over 100 years at mid-2000

  Number

  Male

  1,000

  Female

  7,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. National Population Projections supplied by the Government Actuary's Department for mid-year 2000.

  Expatriates Pensioners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated number of British citizens 120W
  who have emigrated overseas and are in receipt of a State Retirement Pension which has been frozen because they are living in countries without a reciprocal pension upgrading agreement with the UK; and if he will make a statement. [121981]

  Mr. Rooker
  Some 470,000 people overseas are in receipt of a UK State Retirement Pension which has been frozen. The Department's records are unable to differentiate between a British citizen and a pensioner from another country who, through having worked and paid National Insurance in this country, is entitled to a UK State Retirement Pension. Therefore the Department can provide only the total figure.

  The total annual cost of uprating all frozen UK pensions paid overseas to the rate paid to pensioners resident in the UK would be some £300 million a year.

  Our priority is to concentrate any resources that may become available on pensioners resident in the UK. We have done much already for them but, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget, we plan to do more. That is why we have no plans to unfreeze.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if pensioners qualify for winter heating allowance if living abroad for all or part of the year; and if he will make a statement. [121808]

  Angela Eagle
  The Winter Fuel Payment scheme relates only to people aged 60 and over who are ordinarily resident in Great Britain. Eligible people living in Northern Ireland get similar payments through mirroring legislation.

  If someone lives only part of the year abroad and their normal home is in Great Britain they are eligible for a payment; but someone whose normal place of residence is outside Great Britain is not eligible.

  The payments are aimed at mitigating harmful climatological effects that are particular to the British winter. Great Britain has a variable winter climate, which means that there are short spells of very cold weather rather than long ones. Weather conditions can also change rapidly over a few days, and winter mortality rates are higher in Great Britain than in most other European countries. The payments are therefore aimed at older households in Great Britain to ensure they are able to turn up their heating when it is cold.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many newly-issued national insurance numbers have gone missing and how many missing national insurance numbers have been traced to(a) asylum seekers and (b) other persons subject to immigration control in each of the last three years for which figures are available; what estimate he has made of the extent to which national insurance numbers are misappropriated (i) generally, (ii) by asylum seekers and (iii) by other persons subject to immigration control; what action he is taking to investigate this; and if he will make a statement. [121829]
  121W
  Mr. Rooker
  There are no missing National Insurance numbers; all numbers issued are recorded on the Departmental Central Index (DCI). There are some numbers, however, that will have been created, typically when someone invents a fictitious identity. We know of 716 such cases.

  I announced on 27 March plans to ensure that our defences against identity fraud are strengthened. We have found from a pilot in Balham, South London, that a combination of dedicated resources, better training, specialist equipment and effective liaison between Government Departments, particularly with the Immigration and Nationality Department, leads to improved performance in this area. Staff in Balham, using these techniques, have detected 225 cases where fraudulent identity documents were used, all of which resulted in an arrest.

  While data are collected on the number of false identities detected, they are not available in the required format to supply details specific to asylum seekers and those subject to immigration control. The Home Office and my Department work closely to monitor cases involving immigration offenders, 9,256 such cases have been referred. These are checked against DCI, any found to be claiming benefit are referred for investigation by both the Benefits Agency and the Home Office. Data are not available on the outcome of those investigations.

  Benefit Claim Packs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when(a) Attendance Allowance and (b) Disability Living Allowance claim packs will be available in the South Shields constituency. [122398]
  122W
  Mr. Bayley
  The Supply Operations Group Print Contract Management Team has liaised with Newcastle Disability Benefit Centre (DBC) and established their requirement. As a result, Tactica Solutions are issuing 500 copies of each claim pack to the DBC today.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will launch an inquiry into the failure of the Group 4 contractor to supply Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance claim packs to disability benefits centres in the north-east of England. [122397]

  Mr. Bayley
  Based on the existing annual usage information, Tactica Solutions, one of the contractors who supply print items (ie: claim packs, forms and leaflets) to the Benefits Agency, printed adequate stocks of the Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance claim packs to meet demand into May 2000.

  However, an increase in demand in March and April exhausted stock more quickly than anticipated. This was made worse by the fact that stocks were being run down in anticipation of revised versions of these claim packs becoming available. As it takes an average of six weeks to produce a claim pack, the sudden upsurge in demand created a gap in supply.

  New usage figures have now been negotiated with the supplier to take account of the most up to date demand information. This will lead to an increase in stock held that should more accurately reflect customer requirements.

  The current shortage has now been rectified and Tactica Solutions have the products in stock.

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

Lord Hunt of Chesterton
Julian Charles Roland Hunt, CB, having been created Baron Hunt of Chesterton, of Chesterton in the County of Cambridgeshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness David and the Baroness Jay of Paddington.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
David Trevor Shutt, OBE, having been created Baron Shutt of Greetland, of Greetland and Stainland in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Smith of Clifton and the Baroness Harris of Richmond, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Football: Free Movement of Labour
2.48 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they are giving to the efforts of the European football bodies to persuade the European Union institutions to exempt sport from the free movement of labour provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a European Union working group has been constituted to consider the case for exempting sport from the free movement of labour provisions of the Treaty of Rome. The group will also consider the effects of the Busman ruling on sport within the European economic area. The Government are presently consulting a wide range of UK sports bodies. The replies to that consultation will inform our discussions with the working group.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister very much for that Answer. However, given that the chances of securing a special protocol for sport exempting it from the freedom of movement provisions of the treaty seem to be somewhat remote, will my noble friend look kindly at other measures that could tackle some of the main problems facing our domestic game, the most important of which is the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor? Further, does my noble friend agree that proposals from the British football authorities to limit the number of players from outside the European economic area playing for any one team are certainly worth supporting? In that context, will
172
the Government look rather more critically at the applications for work permits from players outside the EEA, in view of the very strong evidence that attempts by unscrupulous agents to exploit the situation are damaging the prospects for young players trying to make a name for themselves and, indeed, are affecting the viability of the England national team?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have to admit that my noble friend has a point about the difficulty of obtaining an additional protocol to the Treaty of Rome. He is also right in thinking that the employment in this country of players from outside the EEA is not affected by the Treaty of Rome and that, therefore, from a European point of view, there is no reason why there should not be the kind of provision to which he referred.
As to the view that the Department for Education and Employment might take, I believe that the Minister concerned forms her views on advice as to what is proper and legal. I am sure that she will take into account the views of my noble friend.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, is it not the case that foreign football players like Zola, Vialli, Leboeuf and Overmars have not only entertained millions of people but also contributed to raising the standard of the game in this country? Indeed, by their example, they have been an inspiration to tens of thousands of young people. Surely we can no more resist this trend than we can resist restaurants run by Marco Pierre White, or executives from Commerzbank in the City of London? Will the Government please continue to resist the dark forces of conservatism and reject this backward-looking, nationalistic, insular, xenophobic and thoroughly outdated approach?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I say things like that from this Dispatch Box I get torn apart by the Eurosceptics—and that is all I am allowed to say in that respect. As I understand it, Marco Pierre White comes from Yorkshire. Therefore, I do not think that he is a particularly good example to put forward. However, in essence, I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. It is true that the free movement of labour is an important provision of the Treaty of Rome: it widens our horizons in football, in cooking and, indeed, in many other areas. It would be a sad day if we were to have too many exemptions from it.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister clearly confirm that it is undesirable to seek this exemption from the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and that the problems to which my noble friend referred earlier largely stem from the arrogance of UEFA? If the latter had been prepared to hold sensible discussions, there need never have been a case at the European Court of Justice nor, indeed, a Bosnian ruling.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, from this Dispatch Box I am not in any position to attribute

173
blame for the Bosman case being brought, any more than I am in a position to comment on the legality of the matter. Certainly, the football organisations in this country have expressed some concerns about the difficulty experienced by young footballers of UK origin in finding places in UK teams because of the number of foreign footballers who come into the game. Some protection is provided for those players under the age of 24, which is, perhaps, the right way forward. However, I have not said that the Government will take action; I simply said that we will listen to what football organisations in this country have to say before deciding what to do.
Lord Addington: My Lords, given the vast amounts of money that are generated by the football entertainment industry, does not the Minister agree that we should encourage the football industry to pump as much money as possible into the development of talent in this country? If it does not do that, we have only ourselves to blame if we do not produce players of a sufficiently high quality and then have to buy them in from other countries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is certainly true that the football organisations undertake to devote only 5 per cent of their earnings from broadcasting to the wider benefit of the sport. That contrasts badly with the position vis-à-vis cricket, and particularly tennis where all of the surpluses from Wimbledon are ploughed into the Lawn Tennis Association. However, this is not a matter on which the Government can lay down laws. Football is not a nationalised industry.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, knowing my noble friend's keen interest in sport, I am sure that he will reflect on the comments of the progressive forces in the House and not just on those made by noble Lords who are pro-European on occasion and anti-European on all other occasions. I know that my noble friend agrees that a problem arises when some Premier League sides field 11 foreign players and others field seven. Even some First Division teams field seven foreign players. That restricts the number of English players at top level. Will my noble friend treat this as a matter of urgency and see what can be done about this grave situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, certainly we are not delaying on this matter. We are listening to the views of football organisations and UK sports bodies on the proposal to exempt sport from the free movement of labour provisions. We shall not delay our consideration of that. My understanding is that there is no formal proposal on the table and that the French Minister of Sport proposes to take the matter forward during the French presidency. No doubt we shall be asked for our views in due course. At the moment, all we have had is a questionnaire from the French Embassy, to which we have responded.
Lord Luke: My Lords, given the views that the noble Lord has already expressed, does he agree with me that
174
the notion that the EU Commission, or any derogated power, could usefully intervene in what is essentially a matter for football authorities is manifestly absurd?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that the European Commission proposes to intervene. I have already said that my view is that football is not a nationalised industry and that the Government should show restraint in seeking to intervene in the way football authorities manage their business.

State Pensions
2.57 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to review the level of state pensions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we shall next be reviewing the level of benefits, including the state retirement pension, in the autumn to take effect from April 2001. Based on the forecast rate of inflation the basic pension will rise by about £2 a week for a single pensioner and by at least £3 a week for a pensioner couple.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I remind the Minister that in 1980 the then Conservative government did away with the earnings rule as a method of assessing increases in state pensions. That proved a severe blow to pensioners. For instance, up to the year 1999–2000 a single pensioner would have lost £28.30 on the basic pension and a married couple £42.60. Is it not time that we gave back a bit of dignity to our pensioners? Does my noble friend appreciate that that will not be achieved by means-tested benefits or a measly 75p?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as my noble friend and noble Lords will know well, the difficulty with the earnings link is that the provision would go to everyone. The Government face the following choice: were the earnings link to be restored, a pensioner couple over 75 would receive about £5 extra a week; if, however, we targeted help through the minimum income guarantee—which is what we are doing—a poorer pensioner couple over 75 would receive £18 a week. That is the choice: £5 for all couples over 75 or £18 for the poorest. Given my beliefs and commitments, I know which measure is most necessary to address the poverty of our older people.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are dodging the issue? If one wants to consider the poorest people, the interesting figure is the cost of providing state pensions for the higher rate taxpayers—the better off in this country—which is something in the region of £7 billion per year. Meanwhile, we have a situation where the state pension for non-taxpayers is clearly inadequate on any

175
basis. Is it not time that we looked at this fundamental problem, which has existed under both parties for a long time?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that the implication of the noble Lord's question is that state pensions should be means tested along with MIG. That is not the position of the Government. We are very clear that the state pension should remain a universal pension and a building block for the prosperity of our older people.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, with the benefit of hindsight, does the noble Baroness agree that, rather than providing a £50 addition to the fuel allowance for all pensioners, it would have been wiser to increase the basic pension by, let us say, £1.25 a week beyond the £75 provided last October?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is certainly the case that the winter fuel payment goes to all pensioner households. This autumn it will average £150 year; £3 a week. I am sure your Lordships will accept that the reason the Chancellor went for, so to speak, a hypothecated sum associated with winter fuel is that we know that pensioners need more heat; we know that they spend more time in their homes; we know that their homes are more poorly insulated; and the noble Lord will know from the questions put to me by his noble friend Lord Russell that there are some 30,000 additional winter deaths of pensioners due to hypothermia over the course of the winter. For those under 65, there are 8,000 additional deaths. So pensioners need extra help with their heating. It seems appropriate to target the money in this way, given what we know about pensioner hypothermia.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Will the Government give an undertaking that there will be no further cuts in the employers' contribution to the National Insurance Fund until the basic state pension has been brought up to at least the level of the minimum income guarantee?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us much appreciate her constant efforts to explain the Government's social policy and to keep us fully informed of its cost and other implications? But, looking beyond Parliament to the reactions of pensioners outside, will she, as opportunity arises, remind her colleagues more directly responsible for deciding the Government's priorities of the instructive subtlety of Oscar Wilde's self-mockery after the first night of one of his plays when he said:
"My play was a great success but the audience a failure"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I accept the reproach of my noble friend that the Government so far have not been able successfully to persuade pensioners of the purpose and effectiveness of the Government's strategy. We know that, as a result of
176
the increase in winter fuel allowance, pensioner families will be receiving an extra £3 a week for those over 75 and an extra £2 a week for their television licences. That £5 is equivalent to the earnings link rise. In addition, the poorest pensioners will receive another £10 to £20 on top. We have not only a good story to tell but a decent and honourable one, which mixes universal and targeted benefits in ways that address real need. I accept the reproach of my noble friend that, if we fail to persuade pensioners of that. we must make sure that our story is communicated more accurately and effectively.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is there any truth in the rumours being spun in the newspapers recently that Gordon Brown now believes that it was a mistake to increase the winter payment and to introduce free television licences and so on, and that it would have been far better to increase the weekly pension? Is he going to change his mind? Is he going to go for an increase in the weekly pension and abolish these one off payments?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, obviously the noble Lord knows more about the Chancellor's state of mind than I do. Certainly I have no reason either to challenge or accept his assertions today. The Chancellor will determine what he proposes to do in the pre-Budget statement in the autumn.

Cyprus
3.4 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What talks have been held with the Cypriot Government with regard to the withdrawal of British sovereign base areas in Cyprus.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, there have been no talks between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus with regard to the withdrawal of British sovereign base areas in Cyprus, nor do we have any intention to hold such talks. The sovereign base areas are British sovereign territory, as recognised by the 1960 Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus between the United Kingdom, Greece, Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am very glad to hear the Minister's reply because there have been strong rumours that talks have taken place. Can the noble Baroness confirm unequivocally—I believe that she will have no difficulty in so doing—the importance of the sovereign base areas to all British interests in the Near and Middle East?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to confirm what the noble Lord has said. As the noble Lord knows, the SBAs are military bases. They remain

177
key, strategic assets in a troubled region; their logistic benefit as a forward mounting base was demonstrated during the Gulf War; and they provide valuable training facilities. I am happy to confirm everything that the noble Lord said.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister explain how Cypriot negotiations for membership of the European Union fit in with the continuing use of the sovereign bases? If Cyprus is to join the European Union among the first group—which will require negotiations also with Turkey—will that in any way alter the status of those bases? Or is that the subject of an entirely different set of discussions?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, it is an entirely different set of discussions. None of the countries has raised the issue of our bases; they remain British territory. They do not in any way impinge on the negotiations.

Disability Information Trust
3.6 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider the decision of the Department of Health to withdraw funding from the Disability Information Trust.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, each year the Department of Health makes discretionary grants to support activities to help people with physical disabilities and sensory impairments, which this year totalled £2 million. Voluntary organisations submit applications, which are considered on merit as funds are limited. The Disability Information Trust has received grants for many years. This year the trust submitted three project applications: one, jointly with the Disabled Living Foundation, attracted funding of £20,000; the other two were unsuccessful.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat disappointing reply. I must declare an interest: until two years ago I was chairman of this trust based at the Mary Marlborough Lodge in Oxford. Does the Minister accept that this charity has for many years, with core funding from the Department of Health, produced invaluable publications which have been widely commended by disabled people and by those who care for them? Does he further accept that the withdrawal of core funding of some £80,000 will inevitably result in the winding-up of this trust, which provides a valuable service, and in rendering redundant its three dedicated staff?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I acknowledge the role played by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in the trust and the value that the department places on its work in the past. The formula for reducing the payment on a tapering basis over the past three years was decided in 1996. This year the applications were rejected, generally, because of the high level of demand on our cash-limited funds and because there are several existing Section 64 grants to organisations which provide information about disability equipment. I agree with the noble Lord that the publications from the trust have been informative and well appreciated. However, other organisations have made similar applications to those of the trust.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that was an incredible response? Is he aware that, in less than two hours' time, the Audit Commission is coming to the All-Party Disablement Group to explain the report on the disastrous state of equipment for disabled people in Britain? The Disability Information Trust reports on disability equipment.
This is the very last time that we should be cutting finance for trusts of this kind. With the development of the Disability Discrimination Act, the implementation of that Act and the complexity of the law which disabled people and the public need to understand, the Government should be increasing information about disability rather than reducing it. Will the Government think again?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that comment and I am well aware, as are noble Lords in the Chamber today, how concerned he is about the issue of contributions to the disabled. The Audit Commission report's findings confirm that these services are critically important to disabled and older people. We agree that there needs to be improvement and there also needs to be a higher profile.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord has already referred to the Audit Commission's rather damning report referring to wasted money and lack of management structures. In the light of that, can the noble Lord assure us that more funding will be given to other organisations which are covering the work done by the trust and that, if they are not, they will ensure that the trust receives more fundings? There is quite clearly an absolute lack of proper information here and most disability organisations spend most of their time giving out information.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the Audit Commission report. I can say that the Government are already taking a wide range of actions to increase standards as a result of that report. Extra money is available through specific fundings such as partnerships and prevention initiatives. We recently announced a £4 million investment in 2001–02 to modernise hearing aids. We funded the Disabled Living Centres Council to produce good practice guidance on provision of community equipment

179
services. We have distributed the guidance widely in the National Health Service and social services. The Government's record in this area is very good. Indeed, by the end of their term of office they will have proved that they have successfully aided the position of those who unfortunately are in disablement positions.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, irrespective of the value of this charity, of which I am well aware, does the Minister agree with me that it is one thing for government departments to give project grants for individual items that charities undertake and it is quite another thing for them to give core grants to continue their operations in a general way, employing staff and such like? In those situations, does not the Minister agree that the charity in fact ceases to be a charity and becomes an organ of the state?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, would want me to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on that issue but I agree with the general thrust of what he had to say. At the time of the Disablement Information Trust becoming a charity in 1991 less work was being done in the field of information about disability and disability equipment. In recent years more organisations have become active in this area. All applications from voluntary organisations wishing to further this work must be considered on equal merits. Unfortunately, that is where the Disability Information Trust falls at the moment.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister has frequently used the word "we" when talking about the allocation of grants. Could he tell us who "we" are?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for correcting me in that area. I can only say that my explanation of "we" is that it is the Government and the Department of Health on this occasion.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the service provided by the Disability Information Trust is not commercially economic—not remotely so—and that it must depend on grant funding of some nature if it is to survive? Does he not consider that this is a worthy use for taxpayers' money and will he not undertake today to reconsider his department's decision?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the noble Earl refers to the Disability Information Trust surviving only if it has core funding. The decision to taper off core funding was made in 1996 under the then Secretary of State and we are now coming to a point where the core funding has indeed tapered off. It is necessary for the Disability Information Trust to consider its future which lies either on the basis of being able to apply successfully in the future for funding or, perhaps, consider other alternatives such as a merger, which might be a possibility for the future.

Business
3.16 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on defence procurement. If the Report stage of the Electronic Communications Bill proceeds beyond 3.30 p.m., the Statement will be taken after conclusion of that Report stage. If the Report stage ends before 3.30 p.m., the Statement will be taken after the two Northern Ireland orders.

Business of the House: Debate, 17th May
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Tebbit set down for tomorrow shall be limited to five hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Standing Order 72
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 72 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to enable the Motions to approve the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 and the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) (No. 2) Order 2000 to be taken today, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the draft orders has been laid before the House.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is not unusual for the Leader of the House to seek to move the Motion temporarily suspending Standing Order 72. However, this is normally done in emergency situations or where matters are evolving very, very quickly. One can well understand why the Government wish to proceed with the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) (No. 2) Order for that very purpose. However, that cannot be so of the flags order. The flags order, temporarily anyway, transfers to the Secretary of State what is a transferred matter: the control of the flying of flags, designs and so forth. I ask the noble Baroness to explain to me why she is asking us to abandon Standing Order 72 for the purpose of that order.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding the House that these matters, particularly those relating to Northern Ireland, have been taken in this form and that the House has agreed to this procedure. On the

181
question of the two orders before the House, my understanding is that both are regarded as equally important and that both have to go to meetings of the Privy Council tomorrow. It was therefore thought relevant that this procedure should be adopted and it has been agreed by the usual channels.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Electronic Communications Bill
3.18 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Arrangements for the grant of approvals]:
[Amendments Nos. I and 2 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Regulations under Part I]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Before making any regulations by virtue of section 2(3)(a) or (b) the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such persons appearing to him to be likely to be affected by those regulations, and

(b) such persons appearing to him to be representative of persons likely to be so affected,

as he thinks fit.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville. I should explain that my noble friend apologises to the House for his absence, but he is in Japan for the whole of this week on, needless to say, government business.
Before turning to Amendment No. 3, I should like briefly to say a few words on the important topic of data protection in connection with Clause 4 of the Bill. During the discussion in Grand Committee, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury noted that there was a somewhat complex interaction between the Data Protection Act 1998 and this legislation. He promised the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, who had raised the subject with him, to say a few words at Report stage about this interaction.
Clause 4 concerns regulatory information obtained for the purposes of Part I of the Bill. One of the purposes for which this information may be disclosed is in connection with criminal proceedings. But in deciding whether to make such a disclosure, the Secretary of State would have to take into account whether that disclosure is consistent with the Data Protection Act. So there is no conflict between the two pieces of legislation.
To be precise, information in this case comes into the possession of the Secretary of State through the powers invested in him in Part I of the Bill. The information, from those bodies seeking "approval" under Part I, may be commercially confidential or affect people's privacy, so it is important to define precisely the purposes for which the information can be disclosed. The clause thus makes it an offence to disclose information obtained under Part I of the Bill
182
unless it is for the purposes spelled out in the clause, or the data owner has given his consent to its disclosure. There are precedents for such disclosure provisions, including legislation on competition, utility regulation and financial services.
Turning to the Data Protection Act 1998, in relation to Clause 4, perhaps I should start by noting that the Act does not, in the most part, lay down cast-iron rules on the circumstances under which information might be disclosed. Instead it lays out a framework under which those holding information can judge the extent to which it can be disclosed and to whom. This, in turn, will depend on the nature of the information—what it might identify about the person or body concerned—on what basis it was obtained and the purposes for which disclosure is to be made. A further consideration would, of course, be whether the subject of the information had expressly consented to the information being made available to other than the data holder.
In turning to Clause 4 in this context, the important point to make is that it does not mandate the Secretary of State, or anyone else, to disclose any information at all. Instead, in subsection (2), it limits the purposes for which information can be disclosed if the Secretary of State so decides. And in deciding whether information should be disclosed, the Secretary of State has to be mindful of the Data Protection Act. In other words, in each circumstance where data were to be disclosed, say, for example, in connection with the investigation of a criminal offence under subsection (2)(c), the Secretary of State would need to be satisfied that such disclosure was compatible with the Act and the data protection principles it outlines. This, as I said, would, inter alia, depend on the exact purpose of the disclosure, the nature of the information and what the data subject had been told about such potential disclosure when the information was submitted.
Such decisions, which the Secretary of State is obliged to make in each case of potential disclosure, are not uncommon. They occur with respect to other legislation and are the basis on which the Data Protection Act has been drafted. Therefore, I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and others, that, for the reasons I have outlined, Clause 4 is consistent with the Data Protection Act, and indeed strengthens, rather than weakens, the protection given to information submitted by those seeking approval under Part I of the Bill.
I turn to Amendment No. 3. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this amendment. It merely reflects a commitment made by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury in Grand Committee to write on the face of the Bill our decision to consult on the approvals criteria. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his further clarification regarding consistency with the Data Protection Act in relation to Clause 4. I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of Amendment No. 3 and confirm our support, as clearly stated during our debate in Grand

183
Committee, for the need for consultation on a broad scale. As I stated in Grand Committee, the credibility of any regulatory scheme depends upon the degree of respect that it has among the major practitioners and consumers in that industry. We are concerned here with a new, nascent industry and it is therefore crucial that the Government listen to and respect those involved with its evolution to ensure that its development will not be compromised or impeded in any way by unnecessary or burdensome regulation.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the concern I raised on the Data Protection Act and, in particular, for his detailed statement which, when set out in Hansard, will be very useful for future interpretation of the Bill.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one or two questions on the wording of the amendment. I am concerned that the word "shall" in conjunction with paragraph (a) means that the Secretary of State is obliged to consult everyone who might be affected by those regulations, which is likely to be quite a large number of people. That is particularly so when it is taken with the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a). He not only has to consult those people but also people appearing to him to be representative of them. I am concerned that there is not the usual combination of "may" and "or", which are the words I would have expected there, and that the drafting will leave the Secretary of State with a very large task on his hands and one on which he may well be challenged on suspicion of incompleteness.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for their support, both for the amendment and for the statement which I was able to make about the Data Protection Act. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his tender concern for the sensibilities and duties of the Secretary of State. If there were the kind of challenge to which he referred, the Secretary of State could respond by saying, in terms of the final three words of the amendment, that he did not think fit to go any further in the consultation than he had done. I think that is a let out. It is an interesting point. We frequently use "shall" and "and" where some people think that we should use "may" and "or"; and more frequently the other way round.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power to modify legislation]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall maintain at a specified office and a specified site on the internet a list of all orders made under this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to continue a discussion which we had at the Committee stage concerning all the regulations that are to be made under Clause 8. They will be many and various and will be made at different times, by different departments, on different bases and will
184
concern different problems. Over the course of time it will be difficult for anyone wishing to use electronic signatures to know quite where the legislation is as regards their acceptability.
In Committee we discussed various ways in which this issue might be addressed. Those were not acceptable. This amendment is an attempt to look at the problem in a different way and to make sure that the information and the legislation on the use of electronic signatures are easily and consistently obtainable by anyone needing to know it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for giving me the opportunity to explain the Government's plans for publicising the use of Clause 8.
First, I remind the House that my honourable friend Patricia Hewitt has deposited in the House Library a memorandum, prepared by the Cabinet Office's Central IT Unit, giving more detail—indeed, a great deal more detail—on how we will use this power. The Cabinet Office already publishes six-monthly reports, not only to Parliament but also on the web, on our progress towards information age government. That report is likely to be the appropriate vehicle for reporting on progress in using Clause 8 and, together with individual departments' targeted publicity on legislative changes, would achieve the objective of the noble Lord's amendment.
The Government have already announced their intention to use Clause 8 to make changes to the Companies Act and to facilitate electronic conveyancing. We will shortly be publishing further details on our priorities for using Clause 8.I should add that whether or not Clause 8 has been used in a particular area will not be the only indication of whether electronic means are permitted. Where the only requirement is for a "signature", Clause 7, which will come into force two months after Royal Assent, will put it beyond doubt that electronic signatures are admissible. In some cases, existing legislation may already allow electronic means. Alternatively, the use of electronic means may be authorised or facilitated by new primary legislation or by secondary legislation made under powers conferred by existing primary legislation.
Although Clause 8 can apply to future legislation, made after this Bill becomes law, I expect that future legislation will often provide for electronic means. So the important thing will be for people to check an up-to-date copy of the relevant legislation, possibly as amended by what will be the Electronic Communications Act, rather than to know whether or not Clause 8 has been applied in a particular case.
In any case, secondary legislation is already available on a website maintained by Her Majesty's Stationery Office (www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk) which enables details of any future orders made under Clause 8 to be readily found. I understand that this has been checked within the past 24 hours and that it is necessary only to access that website and, to use the

185
"natural language" search so as to find, for example, statutory instruments made under Section 8 of what will be the Electronic Communications Act 2000. I hope that this clarification will persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I preferred my own simpler and more straightforward way of going about this; nevertheless I shall give in on the argument and accept that the Government will have their way. I hope that in this matter electronic government is rather more effective than it has been in my request for responses to my Written Questions by e-mail. I still cannot consistently obtain them in that form some three years after making my initial request.
Although I share the Minister's hopes that this will form an effective part of electronic government, we shall have to wait and see. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
VALIDATION OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE
(" .An order under section 8 may not require that an electronic signature may only be validated by a cryptography service provider registered under the provisions of Part I of this Act; nor may any government department or agency make any such stipulation in any contract or document.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had intended to speak to this amendment with Amendment No. 2, which failed to appear. To an extent both amendments address the same question.
The Minister said in Committee that the Government have no intention of licensing, approving or in any way signing up to other countries' systems for registration. However, the reality is that other countries, in particular the United States, will put in place their own forms of registration. If we do not accept those forms, we shall force companies to register under every system in the world, including ours, in order to be on side of the domestic legislation.
The Government will need to take decisions as to which forms of overseas registration they will accept for the purposes of regulations made under the provisions of Clause 8. When they have done that, they should not then declare that only UK forms of registration are acceptable under particular circumstances set out in UK legislation. We should aim for as simple and usable a world-wide system of registration as we can achieve. The Government will need to participate in that. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government have had further thoughts on the matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friend Lord Lucas to say only that this matter was discussed at great length in Committee. I feel that it is important that the Minister should clarify what will happen when companies wish to register to
186
set up and do business in this country. Will they be burdened with the extra costs and time needed to reregister each time they establish operations in the United Kingdom? Without clarification on this point, we shall put in place a hindrance as regards the development of e-commerce. That would go against the Government's declaration that the UK is the best place in the world as regards the promotion of e-commerce.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am in some difficulty because, in referring back to Amendment No. 2, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, neglected to speak to his Amendment No. 5. For that reason, I shall need to return to briefing notes on Amendment No. 2 which I had already discarded when it was not moved. I am, however, happy to do that. But before I do so, perhaps I may say a few words about the question of whether Clause 7 is too restrictive, which was debated at some length in Grand Committee. I should like to make some general remarks about how the Bill deals with electronic signatures.
Various organisations have asked the Government to consider whether Clause 7 is drafted too restrictively and could have the effect of excluding certain certificates and certain kinds of signature from admissibility. The first point to make—this is relevant to both Amendments Nos. 2 and 5—is that Clause 7 is not intended to prevent anything being admissible in evidence. In the Government's view, it does not have that effect.
The Government's intention is that the clause should apply to a wide category of electronic things so that the courts are able to receive evidence of them and give that evidence the weight it should properly bear. The clause states what is meant by an electronic signature and its certification. Each of these terms is given a pretty wide meaning. The meaning given to the term "electronic signature" is along the same lines as that given in the European Community's Electronic Signatures Directive; it is not identical, but the Bill's definition is, if anything, wider.
The meaning given for "certify" and, by implication, "certification" is wider than is the definition of "certificate" in the directive. Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 7(3) has already been amended in another place to widen the concept of certification in the Bill. In particular, a certificate does not have to be seen in isolation. In considering whether the subject matter of a certificate is a valid means of establishing authenticity or integrity—for example, when a witness is required to confirm an electronic signature—other factors may be considered as well.
The Government have been asked whether the only certificates which are admissible are those which say, for example, "I confirm that this signature belongs to Andrew McIntosh", or "I confirm that this means of producing signatures is a valid means of establishing the authenticity of the communication". The answer is "No". Subsection (3) of Clause 7 is so drafted that it makes admissible a statement which needs to be added to other evidence to establish authenticity or integrity. For example, the signature service provider might

187
make a general statement in his literature that certificates bearing his logo were a valid means of establishing authenticity.
In drafting Clause 7, the Government have aimed at being as inclusive as possible. We have not invented the terms "electronic signature" or "certification"; these terms were already in use within the industry. The Government's approach has been to avoid focusing too much on the labels "signature" or "certificate". It is immaterial what the parties call the thing what is important is to look at the function it performs. The functions described in Clause 7 are very wide indeed.
Perhaps I may now return to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in relation to Amendment No. 2, which states:
"The Secretary of State may make provision for the recognition of approvals granted under compatible registration procedures in other jurisdictions where he has agreed to recognise such procedures".
The point that we seek to make here is that we do not think that, at this stage, bilateral recognition is the right way to move forward. Clearly, advances in electronic signatures and certification are taking place all over the world. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned the United States, but we must also consider the European Union and many other regions which are advancing in this area—although we rather think that we are ahead of the game.
Article 7 of the EU directive contemplates three ways in which the certificates from outside the Union may he recognised. Perhaps I may take certificates from outside the Union as exemplars of the international trade consequences of what we are discussing. The first is by a provider in a third country being accredited by a scheme in a member state. The second is by an EU provider guaranteeing the quality of the certificate from a third country provider. The third is through bilateral or EU-level arrangements with third countries. It is the third, the bilateral proposal that was made in Amendment No. 2.
We do not believe that the bilateral approach will be the most common route. We believe that the first and second routes will be the most common, and that this is a market where industry and international standards bodies are increasingly driving the process. There was a debate about UNCITRAL in Grand Committee.
Overseas providers can choose whether or not to seek UK approval. There is nothing to stop them doing so if they believe that UK approval will give them higher status in the market-place. Equally, if they believe that overseas approval gives them the status that they need, there is nothing to stop them trading in the U K on that basis. Since overseas providers will have a choice, we are not imposing a burden on them or on us. We are not requiring anyone to go in for approval procedures which are in advance of their particular needs. What we are doing is providing the basic requirement of all of these provisions; namely, that in law there is a possibility of the recognition, if the courts agree it, of an electronic signature and certification.
188
This is an occasion where I believe that we are giving the lead in encouraging the market for electronic communications to grow without being over-prescriptive. I fear that the amendments would indeed be over-prescriptive.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, which I shall read with interest. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Defence Procurement
3.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on defence procurement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on two significant defence procurement decisions. I would like to announce our decision on a new beyond visual range air-to-air missile to arm the Eurofighter, and on delivering, the major enhancements to our strategic airlift capability promised in the Strategic Defence Review
"This Government are committed to the modernisation of our Armed Forces. We are determined to deliver improvements in defence capability, to underpin long-term security and to ensure that Britain can act as a real force for good in the world. Our Armed Forces deserve the best equipment. We are committed to ensuring that they have the best equipment. But we are also committed to doing this in a way which is cost-effective and the best value for taxpayers' money. Smart procurement means making every pound count.
"We are also aware of the wider context. The procurement package we have selected is clear evidence for our partners on both sides of the Atlantic of our strong commitment to enhance European defence capabilities. NATO's effectiveness depends on continuing technological improvement and on equitable burden sharing. The European Defence Initiative lies at the heart of this, for the good of Europe, the transatlantic alliance and the international community as a whole.
"The beyond visual range air-to-air missile is a vital component of the Eurofighter's ability to dominate the skies. It promises to be a highly accurate, highly manoeuvrable missile that will significantly improve Eurofighter's 'no-escape' zone, and hence will ensure that this world-class aircraft can combat all projected air threats. It will make a major contribution to the air superiority requirements of the United Kingdom and coalition partners, including NATO operations. Our priority is to sustain Eurofighter's superior capability as far as possible into its service life, which will extend well

189
towards the middle of the century. We have to secure the highest performance, at best overall value for the taxpayer
"We have had the advantage of a strong competition with high-quality bids from Matra BAe Dynamics and Raytheon Systems Limited. The competition has been keenly fought, and many honourable Members have written to me and to other Ministers.
"After a thorough, indeed exhaustive, process we have concluded that the Meteor missile offered by Matra BAe Dynamics and its consortium is likely to best meet our needs over the life of the Eurofighter aircraft. The overall performance promised by Meteor will ensure that Eurofighter is equipped with the best weapon possible and will deliver the air superiority that is central to success in military operations.
"Meteor is a collaborative venture with Germany, Italy, Spain—our Eurofighter partners—France and, we hope, Sweden. We now plan to conclude a memorandum of understanding with those European partners by the end of the year, formally committing us all to this programme. Subject also to agreement of satisfactory terms and conditions with Matra BAE Dynamics, we will award a contract as soon as possible.
"This will be a Smart contract. Tightly defined breakpoints in the contract will be linked to flight tests and other demonstrable achievements. These will focus on, first, the ram-jet motor, then guidance systems, and finally data-links and electronic counter-measures. Specific dates will be attached to each.
"These breakpoints will be auditable and capable of external independent evaluation. If these are not delivered, the contract will be terminated by the partner nations which will recover all development costs from the contractor.
"Meteor is expected to enter service with the RAF in the latter half of this decade. Meanwhile, we intend to buy more of the currently highly capable advanced medium-range air-to-air missile, produced by Raytheon, to equip Eurofighter when it first comes into service.
"Our decision will give the RAF the most advanced air-to-air missile in the world. It will be welcome to our European partners. It will also be welcomed by our US allies as a clear indication of our commitment to a strong defence capability, available for all operations in which the United Kingdom might be involved.
"Industry in the United Kingdom will also welcome this decision. Matra BAe estimates that it will create or sustain some 1,200 jobs in the UK, including at Stevenage, Bristol and Stanmore. Many of these will be high-quality jobs in new technology, and in system and software design. The United Kingdom will lead this major project.
190
"I turn now to our strategic airlift requirements. Improving the mobility and deployability of our forces was a key theme of the Strategic Defence Review. Events in the Balkans and, more recently, Mozambique and Sierra Leone, have underlined the high priority of increasing our strategic airlift capability. Both NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative, and the Headline Goal adopted at the Helsinki European Council, identify this capability as one in which Europeans need to make particular improvements.
"We have explored a number of possible avenues to meet our immediate needs as well as the longer-term requirement. After careful consideration, we have determined that the best short to medium-term solution is a lease of four C-17 Globemaster aircraft from the Boeing company. They will begin the first of several years of service with the RAF from the middle of next year. These flexible, capable aircraft will deliver vital, early support to our new Joint Rapid Reaction Forces. They will also make a crucial contribution to improving the aircraft capabilities available for NATO and European operations and to inter-operability with the United States.
"Beyond this short-term lease, we have now decided that our heavy lift needs from the latter part of this decade onwards would be best met by the A400M aircraft from Airbus Military Company.
"This promises to be a superb aircraft—a new design that is specifically tailored to meet our military requirement. Moreover, the A400M should offer an extremely flexible capability, covering both the tactical and strategic roles. It offers scope for a multi-national support package and substantial through-life cost savings.
"At this point, our commitment to A400M is necessarily conditional, in that it is based on assumptions that are dependent both on our potential partners and on Airbus—on their commitments to sufficient numbers of aircraft at launch and the establishment of a viable programme.
"We hope that we can sign a contract for the A400M urgently but this must be based on realistic figures for purchase. All countries must balance the size of firm commitments against other priorities for defence equipment. The United Kingdom will order 25 aircraft in the A400M initial launch. This is sufficient to build a viable programme, while safeguarding our industrial interests. We look forward to other partners following our lead so together we may confirm the launch order as soon as possible.
"But affordability will also rest on confirmation of unit prices at the level offered by Airbus, commitment to the in-service date we require and satisfactory negotiation of commercial terms and conditions. Programme launch and contract placement must also be achieved within a reasonable timeframe.

191
"This is a Smart process too. We shall hold European industry to its promises.
"If Airbus cannot offer us and our partners an affordable and manageable programme on this basis, we shall he able to meet our military requirement and protect the taxpayers' interests by purchasing a fleet of Boeing C-17 aircraft as an alternative.
"But we do look forward to success in this exciting and innovative programme.
"A400M will offer great benefits to the United Kingdom. BAe Systems expects the programme to create directly 3,400 long-term, high-skill, high-wage jobs—in particular at its sites at Filton, Broughton and Prestwick—with indirect employment taking this figure to over 10,000.
"Our industry will be at the forefront of developments in the aircraft's new technology, including a carbon composite and metallic hybrid wing and a new propulsion system. The project will strengthen the European aerospace industry and will complement the world-leading wing capabilities of British industry that we support through the major investment we have recently announced for the development of the A3XX.
"A vital and technologically innovative element of the A400M will be its engines. Airbus Military as prime contractor will be responsible for selecting the best power plant so that the aircraft will meet its commitments to the partner nations on performance and price. However, we shall make sure that in its decision Airbus Military takes full account of the merits of the likely proposal from Rolls-Royce and the undeniable quality of its products.
"These procurement decisions are of great importance to our Armed Forces and our defence capability for several decades to come. They deliver on our promises in the Strategic Defence Review; they make a significant contribution to Europe's defence capabilities; and they are good news for British industry and jobs.
"I commend them to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness most warmly for repeating the Statement by her right honourable friend, which will be very much welcomed by your Lordships. I only hope that by now her right honourable friend has released the journalists who have been locked in an office unable, without their telephones, to ring their bookmakers since 2.45.
We must give our warmest congratulations to British Aerospace on the decision that has been made. It is, however, necessary to ask the Government what took them so long. This suggests a degree of in-fighting among various departments. The decision will be welcomed universally by those parts of the Armed Forces which will operate the equipment. But I hope that today's decision does not turn into tomorrow's
192
problem. Meteor is in the design stage and is st:ill concept that has not been tested or proved. That is recognised by the short-term approval of the Raytheon BVRAAM. Is the Secretary of State buying an unproven missile at twice the cost for good European reasons? Unlike the American missile, this is untried technology.
I should be grateful if the Minister could put on record the cost and in-service date of the Meteor missile. What considerations other than cost were taken into consideration in the decision? What guarantees are there that other European countries will commit themselves? If they do not back it, or the project is unsustainable for any reason, will the United Kingdom be left without a beyond visual range missile for the Eurofighter? What is the fallback situation? If the in-service date is unsatisfactory what will the Government do? Having said that, we welcome the decision.
With regard to heavy lift capability, will the Government put on record the number of C-17s that they intend eventually to lease, and the cost? Is there an option to buy these aircraft? Most important of all, what is the effect of the decision to lease the C-17s on the production of the A400M? Surely, when crews become used to C-17s they will be reluctant to change even to a more advanced aircraft. It may be a wrong decision to have three different heavy lift aircraft in commission, or will the C-130Js be retired early? With three systems, one needs back-up, spares and everything else, which inevitably lead to an increase m the cost and complication of the whole exercise. What is the future of the A400M? It cannot be good; it looks like another Rover, ro-ro ferry or Ford.
How committed are other countries to heavy lift aircraft, and what is the critical mass in terms of numbers? The possible plan that has been quoted involves 195. However, that puts the United Kingdom's requirement at 45. The Secretary of State has announced today the figure of 25. Is 195 an accurate figure? What is the breakeven point for the A400M? Even on the basis of 195, there appears to be a reduction in the number of orders from Germany and Italy in particular. Do we have assurances from those countries and others that they wish to proceed with the A400M? The United States is to replace the C-130Js at the end of this decade. Should not European and American strategic transport requirements be harmonised to allow large production runs, which appear to have a major advantage?
Finally, I should like to raise one matter which is separate from the subject that we are considering. What are the implications of this decision for future tanker aircraft which must have an involvement? Having said that, we very much welcome the Statement and the decision.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches support the Meteor programme and the development of the A400M with the short-term use of the C-17. However, I should like to ask a number of questions.

193
First, as the Meteor system is at the moment only at the development stage it may experience the problems that other weapons system commissioned by the armed services have suffered in the past. I hope that the Minister will report to the House, not necessarily in the form of a Statement, on how those tests are developing over the coming few years.
Although we support the use of the C-17 as a short-term interim measure, our concern is that those aircraft will be on lease. How will that affect their operating capabilities in war zones? Shall we be able to use the C-17 in areas of conflict? Will the Government also make the C-17 and the A400M, when it comes online, available to the United Nations? During debate on the Statement yesterday, we on these Benches raised the issue that some UN forces were unable to reach Sierra Leone with their equipment because they lacked the heavy-lift capability and that it was not being supplied by other members of the United Nations. I hope that the Government will indicate that the aircraft will be available for UN operations.
Finally, according to the Statement, the development of the A400M is seen to be complementary to the development of the A3XX and the dependent large number of jobs. If, due to the cost constraints which may arise from the full price of the development of the aircraft, the A400M is cancelled, what effect will that have on the development of the A3XX?
4 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for what I believe on this occasion has been a genuinely warm welcome of my right honourable friend's Statement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that your Lordships' House in general will welcome the Statement, in particular as regards heavy airlift. Seven noble colleagues raised that issue in the debate on defence last Friday. I hope that they, too, will be happy with the outcome.
There was no infighting between government departments on these decisions. They were closely fought competitions. They are complex projects. We are talking about three projects. Whereas the Meteor project—the beyond visual range missile project—stands on its own, the strategic airlift project was divided into a short-term need and a longer-term need. Identifying the C-17 as covering the short-term need and the A400M as the longer-term need was always a possibility.
Yes, the noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Redesdale, are right: Meteor is at the design stage. But Her Majesty's Government believe that Meteor is the best of the tenders put forward in terms of the overall lifetime of the Eurofighter. It will arm the RAF with a missile which will make a major contribution to the air superiority requirements of the United Kingdom and our coalition partners.
194
I was asked about the cost. I cannot give detailed costings because of the commercial in-confidence rules. But I can tell your Lordships that the overall costs of the Meteor project are approximately £1 billion. Some noble Lords have expressed recently some worries in your Lordships' House about the MoD always going for the cheapest option. It is worth saying that we have looked carefully at capability, not cost. Value for money is not synonymous with accepting the cheapest tender. I think that your Lordships will see this decision as very strong evidence of that aim at work. As I said when making the Statement, there will be break points in this contract. I stress to your Lordships that the break points will be capable of audit and external independent evaluation. That is an important point. We focused in particular on the ram-jet motor on the guidance systems and on the datalinks electronic counter measures. So we have a checking mechanism in place which I hope meets the natural concerns that there are bound to be about the project still being at a developmental stage.
I stress to your Lordships that if the missiles are not developed, the partner nations will cover all development costs from the contractor. I hope that noble Lords will see that as a significant advance in the Smart contracts we are now seeking to develop on these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked what would happen if there were a failure in the project. We would go back to the market to secure the missile system that we need.
The noble Lord then turned his attention to the C-17. There will be four of those aircraft leased over a seven-year period. The total cost over that period will be in the region of £0.5 billion for that element. I do not believe that the RAF will be reluctant to make the change to this aircraft. I believe that the RAF is full of extraordinarily skilled pilots who will relish the opportunity to fly what we believe will be an extraordinarily capable aircraft. I stress to the noble Lord that we shall not have three aircraft in operation together for very long because we shall be finishing the seven-year lease on the C-17s as we bring in the A400Ms. We shall have the C-130Js which, as the noble Lord knows, have been brought into service as part of our longer-term strategic airlift requirement. At present, noble Lords will know that we have 51 C-130s. Twenty-five or 26 C-130Js are coming in. There will then be 25 A400Ms which have one and a half times the capacity of the C-130 Hercules aircraft.
As regards the A400Ms, the partner countries are Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Belgium. We have identified 25 aircraft as our need. We believe that it is time for complete straightforwardness over this and that partner nations should not be willing to deal in the realms of speculation about what they might do. Without being too conceited, I hope I can say that the United Kingdom has given a lead on this. We hope that the partner nations will now also take the plunge and say what number of these aircraft they require.

195
The noble Lord asked what number we need. I have heard various figures quoted. I have heard various figures quoted by Airbus Military itself. They vary from 150 to 270 or 280. I suspect that there is a good deal of flexibility in that number as we shall see when our partners start to declare.
The noble Lord also asked about harmonisation. There will be considerable harmonisation if all partner nations take up the challenge and go for the A400M. On the tanker aircraft, it is a somewhat different decision. It is a PH project and we ye still trying to formulate the way in which we shall run that competition.
In answering the questions addressed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I hope that I have covered the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. The C-17s are on lease. The test was real value for money. It was a leasing decision. It may sound an unusual decision, but noble Lords should recognise that leasing is what occurs in the civil world. There are considerable advantages to leasing aircraft. We are not in the position of having to go to a spot market to try to hire the capability we need because we shall be able to take these aircraft where we want them. They will be ours for the using. We shall not have to try to extract them from wherever they may be with the painful business of explaining why we want them and so on. They will be ours to use. They will be available to the United Nations if appropriate. Indeed, as I believe the Statement implied, had we had them, we would have used them in Mozambique and Sierra Leone. However, we shall have them soon.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, with regard to the Royal Air Force I believe that the noble Baroness has made the right decision in moving from the Hercules to the Boeing A400. As she said, I am sure that from an operational point of view there will be no problems for the Royal Air Force. First, in relation to heavy-lift, can she give even an approximate figure of how many additional jobs there might be at Prestwick? Secondly, every pilot to whom I have spoken who has had the privilege of flying the Eurofighter says that it is an exceptional aircraft. Does the Minister really mean that it will not be in service until approximately 2008 or 2009, and is that with or without Meteor? Virtually 10 years is a long time to wait until it is put into squadron service, and I am sure that the Royal Air Force would like to have it quicker than that.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords. We are expecting to take delivery of the first Eurofighters in the year 2002. The delivery period will take place between 2002 and 2014. In the initial stages it will be armed with the AMRAAM missile. However, during the latter stages of taking delivery of the Eurofighter we shall arm it with the superior capability offered by the Meteor missile system. We hope that that will be towards the end of the decade. The supply of Eurofighters will be built up over that period, reaching a peak after about 2005, when we hope to take delivery of approximately 20 or so a year.
196
I thank the noble Lord for his support on heavy-lift. He asked specifically about jobs. I have a full breakdown on a number of different job issues. I believe that it may be helpful if I write to the noble Lord with that breakdown. I believe that it is rather invidious to go into detail on where the jobs will be concentrated. However, in relation to heavy airlift, the concentration of jobs is likely to be in the north-west of England and, of course, in Broughton. Therefore, approximately 3,500 jobs in Broughton will be sustained directly by the decision on the A400M. We hope that that will build to approximately 10,000 jobs in the supporting industries which we believe, and which the company tell us, will flourish as a result.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend for four reasons: first, on ensuring that the Royal Air Force will have adequate transport aircraft, and particularly the heavy-lift which has long been needed and was certainly needed before the last election. I also thank her for ensuring that the Eurofighter will be a highly competitive aircraft. Even though we are talking of enormous cost, will it not also be a great deal cheaper than the F22, its possible competitor? Thirdly, I thank my noble friend for ensuring that Britain retains the highest level of technological capacity in this field. Fourthly, and not least important, does my noble friend accept that the Government deserve congratulation on their approach to procurement? If they had not adopted that approach, the British taxpayer would be paying a great deal more.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am delighted to accept all those splendid bouquets from my noble friend. It is a personal delight to me that we have managed to make these decisions. As your Lordships know, as the Minister for Defence Procurement this issue has been placed particularly on my desk and, before me, that of my noble friend Lord Gilbert, who, of course, contributed very heavily to these decisions.
I agree with my noble friend about the heavy-lift requirements. We have scarcely undertaken an operation in which one or other of your Lordships has not had occasion to remind us that we should make progress on this matter; and quite right, too.
With regard to the Eurofighter, the comparison figures that I have show that it will cost some 60 million dollars per aircraft—that is, approximately £40.9 million—and the F22, some 120 million dollars. I shall have to leave noble Lords to their excellent arithmetic to work out the equivalent in pounds. However, even I can see that the Eurofighter is half the cost of the F22, a point about which we might remind the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I know that he has concerns on that front.
The procurement decision is enormously important in terms of technical capability and jobs, about which noble Lords opposite were asking. I refer not only to the number of jobs but to their quality and calibre.

197
They are highly technical and well paid jobs, and they should be a source of considerable prosperity to the regions where they will be concentrated.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Minister has produced a considerable shopping list. Some of the figures that she mentioned give us an indication of what we are about to spend. Having made the calculations, inexact as they must be, perhaps I may ask whether she assumes that the overall defence budget of this country and of the Government will be substantially increased as a result of the shopping list that has now been produced. If so, would that have implications for other spending departments of the United Kingdom Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords. I do not believe that there are any implications for other spending departments in what my noble friend has quite rightly described as a considerable shopping list. Of course, I fully appreciate that in absolute terms the list is expensive. The Meteor comes in at approximately £1 billion over its lifetime; the A400M at £3.5 billion; and the C-17 at £0.5 billion over the seven-year period. That has been well understood.
As I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, the figures have been worked through by those who have responsibility for these matters within the Ministry of Defence. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that a great deal of interest in them has also been shown throughout Whitehall. Of course it has. It is quite right that the figures are crawled over. They are within the MoD's budget.
Despite one or two noble Lords having expressed doubts last week about our willingness within the MoD to put the needs for these capabilities before everything else, I hope that today's decisions have made it clear to all your Lordships that we have, indeed, put the capability of our Armed Forces first.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will my noble friend take note that, unlike in some quarters in this House, what she has said today is welcomed by the Labour Benches? The decision to order Meteor, the A400M and, of course, to recommend Rolls-Royce as the power unit is good news. It keeps us in the forefront of technology and creates many jobs in this country. Therefore, will she please accept our congratulations and pass them on to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence? She also knows of my interest in the heavy-lift programme. Perhaps I may ask her whether the A400M is a preferred supply.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising those points and, of course, I shall convey his thanks to my right honourable friend. I agree with everything that he said about ensuring that we remain in the forefront of technology. I agree also with his point with regard to jobs. In making these decisions it is important that we look at the competitive edge. We should always try to
198
ensure that we have viable competition for the future. That consideration may not always be terribly clear when one is looking from the outside of a project.
I shall take advice on the specific question that my noble friend asked me. If he will bear with me, I shall write to him on the point that he raised about the preferred supplier and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, with, I am sure, all Members of the House I welcome the content of the Statement, particularly the decision to go ahead with the C-17. The fact that that proposal was trailed in the SDR two years ago and that it has taken so long to reach it is obviously a great shame. Nevertheless, we are there and I am delighted to hear it.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that 20 years ago the Royal Air Force had great difficulty with a large number of different types of aircraft in its inventory which, inevitably, had a roll-on cost effect on training and spare supply. I hope that in doing the sums for our future transport requirements the fact that there may be more than one, two or even three types of aircraft in that inventory will be looked into very carefully.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that that point has been taken into consideration. The fact is that a period of overlap exists between releasing the leased C-17s and the incoming A400Ms. I do not believe that it will be very long. I would not expect it to be longer than a year or two. Of course there will be the C130Js, so the lease period is for about seven years. We expect them to see the A440Ms coming into service. The overlap which the noble Lord draws to our attention is something about which we should be very careful, and one would expect his former colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to be very vigilant on this issue. I assure him that they have been, and I am sure that they will continue to be.
As to the length of time it has taken on the C-17s, I stress that although the decisions over the short-term issue over the lease are completely separate, in one sense, to the longer-term issue, they are inevitably linked. It was very important when making these decisions to make sure that the decision was going to be properly cost effective, that we were not going to have decisions that looked as if they were not going to be meshed together, that they were cost-cutting or that there was some other financial deficit in what we were considering. I am sorry that this has taken a longer period than originally expected, but I am delighted that we have made the decision now.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I also express relief on the Meteor decision well made. Would the Minister agree with me that the timing of this announcement could not be better, given the Minister's visit to Athens to secure, we hope, the first Eurofighter export order?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I have to tell the noble Viscount that that is completely fortuitous. I

199
would not like any of your Lordships to believe that this decision was taken on the basis of where the next visit of the Minister of Defence Procurement was likely to take place. The noble Viscount is quite right. Not only is this good news in relation to that particular visit, but it is very good news in relation to other countries to which we may wish to sell the aircraft. I hope that by displaying our confidence we will show other countries, by what we do as well as what we say, that we do mean business.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I, too, share the great pleasure and satisfaction with this news on procurement. I hope the Minister agrees with me and accepts that the many other concerns being voiced last week, not least by me, were about spending on people, spending on housing, spending on training, exercises and so forth. That is what we were very concerned about as well as the other issue. But this is splendid and I look forward to the Minister doing something about those concerns.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for reminding us of the importance of spending on people as well as on equipment. I should say to the noble Baroness that it is very important, when we are trying to bring young people into the Armed Forces and trying to persuade those who have already joined to stay, that we do indicate how much we value our Armed Forces by equipping them properly. It is a vital component in ensurng that the Armed Forces, not only are properly valued but feel properly valued. Everything I have heard today from our friends in the Royal Air Force indicates that they are delighted with these decisions and that they—and. I hope others—will take heart that the Government are doing what they can to equip our Armed Forces properly.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the Ministry of Defence on keeping British jobs in mind by making this decision.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making that point. I think it is very good, particularly at this time, that we have been able to take a decision which is such good news for British jobs. I stress to my noble friend and to others in your Lordships' House, lest there be any misunderstanding, that we have taken these decisions principally for two reasons. One is that they offer a superb capability to our Armed Forces and the second is that they offer very good value for money to the British taxpayer. I am delighted that they have the additional benefit to which my noble friend also referred.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, are the C-17s new aircraft, or have they been used elsewhere? Following on from that, when will they be received into service?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe they are new aircraft. I think we would have
200
something to say about it if they were not. I do not know the particular history of the aircraft we are going to take into the RAF. I am pretty sure that they are going to be brand new aircraft. If there is any adjustment I have to make to that I will write to the noble Earl.
We are expecting to take delivery of two of these aircraft next year and two the year after that.

Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000
4.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th May be approved.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this order is made under paragraph 1 (1) of the schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000.
The key provisions of the draft order are essentially the following: to provide the Secretary of State with regulation-making powers to regulate the flying of flags on government buildings in Northern Ireland; to ensure that the regulations would be referred in draft to the Northern Ireland Assembly; to provide that the Secretary of State shall consider any report made by the Assembly of the views expressed in the Assembly: to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the Belfast agreement when making regulations and to provide that the regulations are laid in draft before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.
Under direct rule, the position was that the Union flag was flown from all government buildings on certain set days. These included most of the days on which the Union flag was flown from government buildings elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but also included some extra days specific only to Northern Ireland, including, for example, St Patrick's Day and 12th July.
The basis of practice on flag flying is, formally, a Royal Command by Her Majesty issued on the Royal Prerogative. Under devolution, these powers of the Royal Prerogative were transferred, in respect of devolved matters, to the individual Northern Ireland Ministers and departments.
During the 10 weeks of devolution, there was no common position among the Northern Ireland Ministers on how they should exercise their prerogative powers in relation to flags. The result was that most departments flew the Union flag from all their buildings on all the specified days; but two departments, under the instructions of their Ministers, did not fly the Union flag at all.
The Government believe that this difficult—though symbolic—issue is best resolved by the Executive Committee itself. Its members are best equipped to identify a basis on which practical and symbolic expression can be given to the underlying principles of

201
the Good Friday agreement, the principle of consent, the principle of equality and the principle of mutual respect.
However, the Government do not want to see the Executive distracted by an essentially symbolic issue from their work to build up a sense of common collective purpose and approach to the business of governing Northern Ireland in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
So this draft order provides a reserve power to set regulations on flag flying from government buildings in Northern Ireland. This reserve power will only be used if it becomes clear that the Executive Committee is unable to agree a way forward and the issue is becoming a palpable source of division among its members.
This reserve power has a number of important safeguards. As I have already said, the power to make regulations about flag-flying on government buildings in Northern Ireland will not be exercised until the Executive Committee has had an opportunity to see whether it can resolve the issue itself. But if this power is to be exercised to remove a potential source of division, it shall be done only in consultation with the Assembly and the Executive Committee. The draft order requires consultation with the Assembly on any regulations and any views it reports are taken into account.
The draft order also requires, very properly, that regard is paid to the provisions of the Belfast agreement—provisions on the principle of consent, on the principle of equality of treatment for the different identities and the provision for symbols and emblems to be used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division.
Finally any regulations are to be approved in both Houses of Parliament.
The Government are not imposing proposals. If, at the end of the day, there is a need to exercise this reserve power there are a number of questions which will need to be answered. What arrangements for flag flying are suitable for government buildings in Northern Ireland and which respect the provisions of the Good Friday agreement? Is it right that the Union flag should be flown from government buildings in Northern Ireland on more days than is the case elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Is it necessarily helpful to require the flag to fly from every government building, wherever it is located and however significant or insignificant it may be? What other arrangements should be in place for flag flying?
The Government believe that a common-sense arrangement, respecting all the principles of the Good Friday agreement, can be arrived at with good will by the members of the Executive Committee. It is on that basis—hoping that the Government never need this power, but ready to use it if the Executive Committee cannot reach agreement—that I commend this draft order to the House. I beg to move.
202
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th May be approved.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
4.30 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, before saying anything on the order, I should like to thank the Government Chief Whip's office. The business today has been fairly confused and the Government Chief Whip's office has been extremely helpful. It has gone out of its way to make sure that those of us concerned with this order had a reasonable idea of when it would be dealt with.
I thank the Minister for the clear and precise way in which he explained the need for the order. I do not like it. I think it is a great shame that we must legislate not only in the House and another place but also, perhaps, in a Northern Ireland Assembly about whether and when we fly our national flag from our nation's government buildings. I find that very distasteful.
I feel that it is yet another move in the wrong direction. It would have been very much more helpful if the actions of the two Sinn Fein Ministers had not been highlighted in that way and they had quietly been told to go on doing what is customary to be done by the nation's Government whom they are serving. I should like to point out that those two Sinn Fein Ministers are serving in a British Government in a British state and, indeed, in part of the United Kingdom. It is traditional. As the Minister said, it is the Queen's Prerogative that the Union flag will be flown on government buildings within the United Kingdom on certain given days, ordered by her.
The other matter which concerns me about the order is its wording. So often in Northern Ireland orders, there is fudged wording. Part III states:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations regarding the flying of flags over government buildings".
It is the Union flag which is flown over government buildings. I believe that the wording of the order sends the wrong message or it is sloppy. I do not believe that it should be sloppy. We are talking about the Union flag.
I do not like this order; I do not like the way that it is pointing; and I do not believe that the 60 per cent of the population who are Unionists in Northern Ireland will appreciate it either.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order and I endorse the view of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that it was done with commendable clarity.
It is vital that this order goes through. The flags issue, important and symbolic though it is, should not impede this stage of the peace process. The order provides an opportunity for Northern Ireland opinion of all kinds to make its views felt when devolution returns, as we hope it will.

203
It is important that this should not be an issue which is allowed to be ratcheted up at this particular point in the negotiations. On these Benches, we unequivocally support the order.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was on the Front Bench earlier today when I questioned the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on why Standing Order 72 was being dispensed with for the taking of this order so that it could be passed, notwithstanding the fact that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had not reported on it.
The fact that the JCSI met today at quarter past four suggests to me that by now it has passed the order, but obviously there has not been time to report on it.
The noble Baroness's reasons seemed to me to be anodyne, so much so that one of my noble friends wanted to divide the House. In my view, that would have been quite wrong as the Motion which the noble Baroness sought to move at that point covered both orders. I am glad that, in the event, no Division was called.
The noble Baroness's reasons were, first, that this had been agreed through the usual channels, something of which I was not aware as I am not a member of the usual channels; and, secondly, that there is a Privy Council meeting tomorrow at which it is due to be discussed. It is my view that neither of those constitutes the emergency for which this standing order was designed.
The order transfers the responsibility for flags from the Assembly to the Secretary of State. As the noble and learned Lord said, there is no statutory provision for the flying of flags on government buildings in the United Kingdom. In Great Britain, the flying of the Union flag on public buildings is by royal command and is an exercise of the Royal Prerogative. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, royal prerogative powers on transferred matters can be exercised by any Northern Ireland Minister. Since the flying of flags is a transferred matter, it should be dealt with, as the noble and learned Lord said, by the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, ultimately, by the Assembly itself.
However, in the light of political sensitivities concerning this matter, the Secretary of State has decided that he should take the authority to regulate the flying of flags on Northern Ireland government buildings should the need arise.
One of the reasons for that is the anticipation of the reconstitution or re-establishment of the Assembly on 22nd May, which is next week. Clearly, neither the Government nor anyone else wants that to start with a row on this or any other matter. One can understand that. Unfortunately, however, as I read the order, it does not stop the potentially antagonistic debate in the Assembly because the order provides that where the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations to regulate the flying of flags a draft of those regulations shall be referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly which, in turn, as the noble and learned Lord said, will
204
report to the Secretary of State the views expressed by the Assembly. The regulations will then be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.
So I am even more confused. First, it will not stop the potential row; and secondly, the urgency simply disappears because the second order, which will operate the flying of flags, is still to be laid before the House.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have one or two questions for the Minister. First, the order expressly states:
"'government building' means a building wholly or mainly occupied by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service".
Does that include or exclude Stormont?
Secondly, we are told in the Explanatory Note and, indeed, in the Minister's speech, that the Secretary of State will have regard to the Belfast agreement. The Belfast agreement clearly states that it is recognised:
"that the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish. It would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of the majority of its people".
I appeal to the Belfast agreement to support my argument.
However, I have a further argument. The Minister said, and it is often said, that we should not allow all this fuss about symbols to get in the way of serious decisions. The Belfast agreement states:
"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes".
I could continue with that paragraph, but I shall not. Perhaps I may suggest that we should, indeed, meet the needs of the Belfast agreement. We should acknowledge that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, has a right to fly the Union flag and need not be expected to fly any other flag. However, I freely accept that if the British/Irish Council or the other joint body, during its meetings, should wish to fly the Irish flag also on Stormont, which I understand is what the Nationalists want, that seems perfectly reasonable. But we are talking about part of the United Kingdom. The Belfast agreement justifies our sticking to that position.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I. too, wish to speak on this order, the tone and tenor of which gives me grave concern. I believe that this issue cuts right across the unionism of the kingdom and lies at the heart of the Good Friday agreement.
The reason we are discussing this subject here today is largely due to the activities of two Sinn Fein/IRA Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive who, while in office, ordered the removal of the Union flag from their departmental building. I am sure that I do not need to remind anyone present in this House today of the importance which flags and emblems assume in Northern Ireland.
When the agreement was signed over two years ago, Unionists believed that there had been an acceptance on the part of the Irish Nationalists and the Irish

205
Republicans of the principle of consent; in other words, an acceptance of the fact that there could be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland. That point was of fundamental importance and, indeed, was recognised and built upon by the actions of the Irish Government in replacing Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution which hitherto had laid claim to Northern Ireland.
If there is serious doubt as to what flag should fly over government and public buildings in the Province, we must examine the nature of the Belfast agreement. It is either, as Unionists believe, a recognition by all sides of the legitimacy of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom or as part of a process designed to move Northern Ireland inexplicably towards a united Ireland or some form of joint authority.
It is my view that while the order is a step forward in that it removes the power of banning the flying of the Union flag from individual members of the Northern Ireland Executive and places that power in the hands of the Secretary of State, I believe that today we should instead be discussing on what days the flag will fly and on which buildings.
As I have stated, this issue cuts right across unionism. There are no "yes" and "no" camps on the flying of the Union flag within a constituent part of the kingdom. The constitutional settlement provided for by the Belfast agreement is within the United Kingdom and on the same basis as for Scotland and Wales. There can be no question, as was raised in some quarters at the weekend, of the Irish tricolour flying alongside the Union flag on British government and public buildings in Northern Ireland. That is a particularly dangerous notion which must be stamped on at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Irish tricolour is the national flag of another sovereign state. For it to fly alongside the Union flag on government buildings would signal to many Unionists and, indeed, Nationals, that a form of joint authority was in place in Northern Ireland. That certainly was not part of any agreement which I supported and for which many Unionists voted. The Secretary of State should be in no doubt that the national flag is the only flag which should fly over government and public buildings in Northern Ireland, and that means the Union flag.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, no one can view the impractical affairs of Northern Ireland without having great sympathy for those on the Government Front Bench who have to handle the responsibilities of that Province. However, my sympathies lie with those who have great anxiety about the instrument before us. I say that because it seems that we are enveloping the whole business of flag flying with a most extraordinary degree of legislation of one sort or another.
I cannot believe that the practical consequences of that will be other than to put pressure upon the flying of the Union flag. I believe that in its way, because of
206
the symbolism, it is in line of succession with the Patten report on the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is all part of a situation where, by one means or another, there is a subtle process at work—I do not say that it is the responsibility of the Government; it goes much wider than the British political system—of hoping to shoehorn Northern Ireland out of its traditional Unionist loyalties into some other form. I view that with suspicion and sadness.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, for the good reasons expressed by noble Lords in their speeches, I share the general anxieties about the order. We hope that goodwill will prevail and that the order might not be required. But surely if it was required, it is inconceivable that the Government would prevent the flying of the Union flag in Northern Ireland. I should have thought that the Government could come out and say now, "We want to make certain that if there is disagreement, we will fly the Union flag" because that is so important from the point of view of the United Kingdom.
I cannot understand, as, indeed, I believe my noble friend Lord Glentoran said at the beginning of the debate, why this is called the Flags Order. We do not have any old flag. This should be the Union Flag Order as far as this Parliament is concerned. As my noble friend Lord Biffen mentioned, it is sad that we have reached this stage of legislating relative to our own flag. If one goes abroad, particularly to the United States of America, one will see the United States flag flying everywhere. Throughout the suburbs of many areas of the USA not only are there United States flags flying but state flags also. The people there are very flag minded. I believe that is true in Northern Ireland where, rightly, they like to promote the use of our Union flag.
I share the view of my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth as regards the statement:
"occupied by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service".
That does not seem to me to be a good definition of a government building. Does it include military buildings? What about army camps? Are they entitled to fly the Union flag, as they often do, alongside their regimental flag? As my noble friend asked, does it apply to RUC police stations and headquarters?
As my noble friend Lord Glentoran indicated right from the start, it was a sad affair to bring this order to the House. It is sad that it is necessary and sad that the Government have any doubt in their mind as to what they would do if there was disagreement within the Assembly in Northern Ireland. I cannot believe that any government, particularly a government here at Westminster, could prevent the flying of the Union flag in Northern Ireland and even the possibility of flying it alongside the tricolour. It just does not seem feasible to me, and I think that the Government should stand up and say, "If there is any doubt, yes, we fly the Union flag".
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I think I can understand some of the fears and anxieties expressed during this

207
debate. They seem to reflect the tensions that arise from a deeply divided society. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Minister whether he agrees that probably the fewer flags, of any kind, that can be flown in Northern Ireland the better for all concerned.
As regards flags on government property, there is a precedent which might usefully be followed. That is the precedent which seems to govern the letterheads on the official writing paper of Northern Ireland government departments. These simply and plainly state the name and address of the department, and are not embellished with coats of arms, crests or other devices. Perhaps that could be borne in mind.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I regard the Motion which is before the House today as rather analogous to what happened on Good Friday two years ago, when the Belfast Agreement was drawn up. I think I am right in saying that securing the vote of the people of Northern Ireland for the Belfast Agreement was on the basis of not just everything that was in the agreement but also a personal assurance that was given by the Prime Minister overnight and the handwritten note that was presented alongside the agreement to the people of Northern Ireland, reassuring them on their basic and rather fundamental fears about the issue of decommissioning.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, is agreeing with me that there was a concern that the people of Northern Ireland would not actually sign the agreement without that reassurance. I believe that to be the case. What we have here is another device—the word "device" has just been used—and I would not regard flying the flag of one's own sovereign country to be a device. However, this is a device: it is a device to take yet another issue about Northern Ireland, kick it into the long grass, and leave it to be fought over another day. I believe that this is a fudge and a typical "third way" in the Government's handling of matters in Northern Ireland.
I should like to say that flying the flag of one's own sovereign country is a basic human right and the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to exercise that right. I can only foresee, as I think my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said, that this difficult and painful debate will continue. Indeed, I believe it will bring it into greater focus. That is because the people will be preoccupied with this as the first issue that needs to be addressed by the Assembly and the Executive when they meet. They will first have to resolve the flags issue.
It seems to me almost offensive to refer to "flags". I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Glentoran: that we should at least extend the courtesy to our friends in Northern Ireland, our fellow countrymen, of referring to "the Union flag" and not saying merely "flags".
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am very sympathetic towards the Government over the very difficult problem that faces them. I have sympathy, too, with the Unionists of Northern Ireland in their difficulty. I know that the Nationalists can be
208
somewhat irritating, to say the least, but I wonder whether it is absolutely necessary or helpful to fly the Union flag on 12th July.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the contributions that have been made to this short but important debate. I understand the concern that has been expressed about this order. Perhaps I may try briefly to reply to all the points that have been made. To begin, I should like to say something about the principles that underlie the making of the Order.
First, we believe that this difficult but important issue is best resolved by the Executive, if it can be. We believe that the best way of doing so is to pursue the principles of the Belfast Agreement. As that agreement acknowledges the legitimacy of the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, I believe that practice in Northern Ireland should reflect practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It should result in mutual respect, not division.
The Union flag remains the flag of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a constituent part. While that is the wish of the majority of its people, flying the flag should be accepted practice. That issue is without doubt best resolved by the Executive. Having said that, it would be in nobody's interest if the Executive was consumed for weeks and months by shadow-boxing over what is essentially a symbolic issue.
All of us would like to see the Executive build up a sense of common collective purpose and approach to the business of governing Northern Ireland in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. This draft order provides my right honourable friend the Secretary of State with a reserve power to set regulations on flag flying from government buildings. He will only use this reserve power if it becomes clear that the Executive is unable to agree a way forward and the issue is becoming a palpable source of division among its members.
Great concern has been expressed in your Lordships' House about the use of the word "flags" rather than "flag". The reason the word appears in the plural is because the order must be able to prohibit as well as to permit. There was absolutely no intention of any sort to cause offence one way or the other by using that phrase. I very much hope what I have said puts your Lordships' minds at rest in relation to that particular issue.—
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for giving way. It was not the plural or the singular that I was referring to: I felt that it should be the "Union flag", as opposed to "flag" or "flags".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the reason the word is in the plural is, as I have indicated, because there may be more than one flag at issue, both in relation to prohibition and consent. That is why the drafting appears in that way. I hope that is clear.

209
The second concern that was expressed was about timing. Legally, the Government only have power to pass this order while the Assembly is suspended. From Monday it will not be possible for them to pass this order and therefore it has to be done this week. That is why it was done at speed, bypassing to some extent the normal procedures. It was not done as an attempt to avoid the proper protections but simply to reflect the fact that if there was to be this reserve power, which we think is important to avoid the risk of the unsuspended Assembly becoming consumed by this issue, it had to be done this week. That is why the normal standing orders have been bypassed.
There was concern about what is a government building. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked whether it included Stormont, or the parliament building. As I understood it, that was her question. The answer is no, it does not. The Parliament building, as the seat of the legislature, is not under the control of a Northern Ireland Minister in the Executive. Decisions relating to parliament buildings are taken by the Assembly Commission, which is a corporate body made up of Members of the Assembly and chaired by the Speaker.
One question related to army camps. They are not under the control of the Executive but under the control of the Ministry of Defence. Obviously it will be a matter for the Ministry of Defence to determine. As for the RUC, that body is under the control of a chief constable, and obviously it is for him to determine issues about flag flying. I believe I have dealt with all the specific points that were raised. Obviously we understand the great concern that has been expressed, but I hope your Lordships understand that a painstaking and enormous amount of hard work was put into building confidence in an attempt to restore politics to normal in Northern Ireland. We think this is a sensible way forward in this respect, and I commend this Order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) (No. 2) Order 2000
5 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th May be approved.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this order appoints 21st May 2001 as the date before which the amnesty period identified in a non-statutory decommissioning scheme must end. The amnesty period is the time during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme, thereby attracting both the amnesty and prohibitions on evidential use and forensic testing of decommissioned items provided by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
210
Section 2 of the 1997 Act requires that a scheme must set out the amnesty period and that it must end before 27th February 1998 unless the Secretary of State, by order, appoints a later day. Three such orders have already been made. Under that made in February this year, the amnesty period will expire at midnight on the 22nd of this month. The purpose of this order is to extend that period until midnight on 20th May next year.
When this order was last extended the political situation in Northern Ireland was very different to that which we see today. My noble friend Lady Farrington sought an extension of the amnesty period only three days after the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive Committee had been suspended due to a serious decline in confidence in the political institutions brought about by a lack of tangible progress on decommissioning. I am delighted to be before your Lordships today under much more positive circumstances.
The details of the recent progress in the political negotiations are now well known to noble Lords and I do not intend to go over them again in great depth. However, I wish to stress again the significance of the IRA statement issued last week. It has undertaken to put its arms completely and verifiably beyond use. It is making arms dumps available to outside inspectors and the first steps are already being taken.
The importance of those undertakings cannot be underestimated. The very real prospect of progress on decommissioning is now within sight. The extension of the amnesty period is crucial to progress on this front. Without the extension of this order decommissioning is simply not possible—whatever commitments are made by the IRA or any other paramilitary organisation.
In order to continue to fulfil our commitments under the agreement, it is essential that we extend, through this order, the period during which an amnesty is provided in respect of offences which might otherwise be committed in the course of decommissioning in accordance with a decommissioning scheme. The confidence-building measure announced by the IRA last week is the first step in a process which will lead to arms being placed completely and verifiably beyond use. The IRA will reengage with the International Decommissioning Commission to take this forward. Arms will be secured in separate dumps which will be inspected by independent third parties.
The Decommissioning Act requires arms to be destroyed or made permanently inaccessible or unusable. Precisely how and when that should take place is a matter for the IICD. The Government are most grateful to former President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland and former General Secretary of the ANC, Cyril Ramaphosa, who have agreed to act as independent inspectors of the arms dumps, reporting to the IICD. Theirs is a crucial task. The Government have every confidence that they will fulfil the role they have been given with the utmost professionalism. They have already visited London and Belfast for an initial

211
round of discussions. They met with the IICD while in Belfast to discuss how they will be taking their responsibilities forward. Their visit indicates the speed with which we are moving forward and demonstrates the very real nature of what has been offered by the IRA.
For the first time we have both words and deeds to demonstrate and underpin the IRA's statement that it will pursue its political aims through peaceful means. Those developments are hugely significant. This Government are committed to both devolution and decommissioning. This order is essential to ensure that the conditions exist to make decommissioning happen. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th May be approved.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. The second order before the House this afternoon continues for a further 12 months the provisions of the measure taken through another place by my noble friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden four years ago. On this side of the House we agree that the provision should be renewed. The order will last for a further year and we support it.
However, it is sad that it is necessary so to do. If decommissioning had taken place, your Lordships would not have to consider the issue. But we take particular note of the fact that the IRA has made a positive statement on decommissioning, though as yet there has been no such indication from the so-called loyalists. However, we wish the people of Northern Ireland well as they grapple with this difficult problem.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we support the passing of this order. We realise it is necessary at this particular point in time otherwise there would be no possibility of decommissioning. Having the two independent assessors—Cyril Ramaphosa and Martti Ahtisaari—reporting to the IICD is good news. Of course, we all wish that this had happened in the past, but let us not be curmudgeonly; this is an important step forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Eames, the Archbishop of Armagh, said on the radio today, this is a significant time. He was indeed being reasonably optimistic, more optimistic in fact than we have heard over the past few years. We should follow his sentiments and give this order a fair wind.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I doubt if anyone would wish to oppose this order. But it worries me that the Minister seems to be living in an optimistic world and looking at this matter through rose-tinted spectacles.
So far as I can discover, the IRA statement gave no date for the commencement of decommissioning; it gave no date for the completion of decommissioning; and it laid down certain conditions which, if one understands IRA-speak, mean the end of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over Northern Ireland before it has committed itself to do anything other than possibly allow two gentlemen—whose motives will be good——to look at some of their
212
armaments dumps (not all, but some), I doubt very much whether, in a year's time, we shall have any clear assurance that any arms have been rendered unusable. If the IRA had wanted to render its arms unusable, it could simply pour a few tonnes of ready-mixed concrete into the bunkers. But that is not what is proposed. It proposes that the bunkers should remain there and that the arms should remain there, ready for use and most certainly not decommissioned.
The Minister, no doubt for good reasons, wants to believe that a great step forward has occurred. But I see no great step forward except by Her Majesty's Government along the road to ending the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over Northern Ireland.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I hate to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said, curmudgeonly, but I, too, feel doubt about the efficacy of inspections of arms carried out by a Finnish and an African politician, neither of whom, so far as I know, has ever handled Semtex or held a gun. It may be difficult for them, looking at the interesting exhibits they will be shown, to reach any real conclusion. I am delighted that they will be allowed to do it, but I do not have much faith in the result.
I share the view of my noble friend Lord Tebbit that, until we know what has been promised to the IRA in return for this, in terms of what it wants in the criminal justice Bill, and a number of other issues of that sort, I shall not be happy that we have had a good deal. I shall watch with interest how far General de Chastelain is actually able to apply any serious "modalities of decommissioning", as they are described in the instrument.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I certainly support the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Park. However, there is something that concerns both me and my noble friend Lord Tebbit about the two gentleman who are now going to look at the arms dumps. Indeed, can we go a little further in this respect? For example, are they going to inspect them every month, or every three months? Are they going to count the number of weapons inside these dumps to see whether there are 100 or 1,000 rifles, and so on, within—or, indeed, any semtex? Further, will any of these weapons be de-activated during the coming year? There is no point in starting off the process of inspection of umpteen arms dumps all over Northern Ireland if they are in exactly the same condition in 12 months' time. We want to see fewer weapons and de-activated weapons. This will ensure that they can never be used again in the future.
People in this country have gone through the strictest firearms legislation over recent years. Indeed, whether you want a shotgun certificate or a firearms certificate, you have to go through very complicated procedures, including getting a number of people to vouch that you are a reputable person and suitable to own a weapon. I suspect—and I am sure that this applies to everyone in practical terms—that there are a number of members of the IRA who do not keep their weapons in an underground dump but who keep them

213
under the bed or in a cupboard. Where do those people stand? Do they have firearms certificates? Will they have their weapons de-activated? Alternatively, will they be required to hand them in to the nearest dump to enable them to be inspected from time to time by the officials so that we know that such weapons are not in the hands of members of the IRA in, so to speak, open countryside?
Like my noble friend Lord Tebbit, I thought that the Minister seemed to be looking through rose-tinted spectacles when outlining how this was going to happen. We have been so near the brink year in year out about decommissioning, yet it never seems to happen. Therefore, we should not be too excited until we actually see some form of decommissioning—and I mean decommissioning, not just storing arms for another 12 months—or the de-activating of each individual weapon so that such weaponry can never be used again.
Lord Carver: My Lords, there can be no doubt that these proposals will not produce a really effective inspection system that will ensure that all IRA weapons are beyond use. However, we should welcome them as a further step in the whole business of dealing with the situation in Northern Ireland. One advances with little creeping steps, and sometimes one then takes steps backwards. I welcome what is proposed, although I have sympathy with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park. As a professional soldier, I know perfectly well that this is not an effective inspection system; but it is a further slight step forward towards maintaining and bringing about a situation in which those arms will not actively be used again.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome what my noble and gallant friend just said. In the light of some earlier remarks this afternoon, I have just one comment to make. Since 1994, we have had cease-fires with, admittedly, a number of breaches. This has been an enormous benefit for the great majority of people living in Northern Ireland. It has led to a very marked economic improvement. Therefore, anyone who breaks the cease-fire and returns to the violence of the past will be most unpopular and held, I would say, in execration by many people. That is all I wish to say.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, again, I am grateful for the comments that have been made in this short debate. It is worth emphasising two points. In their statement of 6th May, the IRA's leadership said that they would,
"initiate a process that would completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use".
They have never previously said such a thing. They also agreed to put in place within weeks a confidence-building measure,
"to confirm that our weapons remain secure",
which was a reference to the inspection of some arms dumps. Again, that is something to which they have never previously agreed.
214
Of course one must be vigilant; of course one must be on one's guard; and of course one must not be too credulous. But the Government regard this as a significant step forward. The timing and modalities of the process of decommissioning are matters to be determined by General de Chastelain and the decommissioning commission. We believe that we have reached a significant moment and that we should capitalise on it. I am grateful for the support that has been expressed, especially from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches, for the extension of the amnesty order, which is plainly a vital step in ensuring that decommissioning occurs. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Bill
5.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Terrorism: interpretation]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): Before I call Amendment No. 1, I must tell the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 2 to 8 inclusive.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("use") to ("outside") in line 14 and insert ("of serious violence against persons, or the causing of serious damage to property, or the threat to use such violence or cause such damage, to intimidate or coerce a government, the public, or any section of the public, in order to promote political, religious or ideological objectives.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) "damage" includes any interference with electronic systems,

(b) "property" includes any public utility undertakings,

(c) "violence" includes the causing of personal injury,

(d) "use" includes use").

The noble Lord said: This amendment, and those grouped with it, concern the definition of the word "terrorism". As we know, the Bill does not create an offence of terrorism in itself, but the definition is the key that allows the police, the courts, the Government, and so on, to use the special anti-terrorist measures provided by the legislation, some of which contain reference to offences which were thought necessary to their proper operation. Therefore, from the point of view of offences, but also in a much wider sense, the definition is vital to the success of the Bill.
It is most important for the definition to be correct. Apart from the offences, it is what triggers the additional powers for the police, the courts and others, which are provided in the Bill. Judging by the Second Reading debate, I believe that we are all agreed that those powers should not be triggered except in the case of genuine terrorist outrages, because they run against our normal expectation of the freedom of the individual, human rights, and so on. So the definition is of the first importance.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the definition because it is very difficult to formulate one in legal language that will stand up to the pressures placed upon it. The discussions in another place about what the proper definition should be continued right up until the end of its debates on the Bill, with the Minister saying at intervals that he was willing to consider the arguments. Therefore, I do not believe that the Government regard the definition as being set in concrete at this point, or that they would necessarily go to the stake for it—provided, of course, that we can convince them of the desirability of modifying the definition.
The definition in the Bill does not follow the lines recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in his report on the situation, which forms the foundation of the legislation; nor is it in line with that recommended by Mr John Rowe QC, who reported on these matters. Indeed, it does not follow the definition to be found in the Government's own consultation document. The responses to the consultation document supported the earlier formulations as developed in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lloyd Lloyd, and in the views held by Mr Rowe and others. It was rather a surprise to note that the definition did not follow those formulations accurately. So far we do not seem to have been given a clear explanation of why the Government changed their mind in that respect.
This afternoon I propose to address the points of interest with regard to the definition comparatively briefly to give the Minister and others the opportunity to outline the Government's case and to allow us to discuss the matter as fully as possible. I hope that that will enable us to achieve wider agreement on all sides of the Chamber before we reach the later stages of the Bill. As I say, I recognise that it is difficult to arrive at a wholly satisfactory definition.
Amendment No. 1, which stands in my name, reproduces the definition of "terrorism" as proposed by Mr John Rowe QC in a letter written after the Second Reading—and obviously after having seen the Bill—to myself and to a number of noble Lords including the Minister. Since I tabled the amendment I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. He told me that he much regretted that an unbreakable engagement this evening prevents him attending this debate as he would have wished. He told me that I could inform the Committee that he thinks that Mr Rowe's draft is an improvement on his own suggestions. The noble and learned Lord believes that the definition in the Bill is seriously defective. While I
216
do not in any way seek to tie him to every word that I say, I believe that he and I are in general agreement as regards the problems concerning the definition as it appears in the Bill.
The most important difference between the definition in the Bill and Mr Rowe's formulation in Amendment No. 1 is the omission in the Bill's definition of the concept of terror, of placing the public in fear or—as stated in Amendment No. 1—
"to intimidate or coerce a government, the public, or any section of the public".
Most of us believe that terror is of the essence of terrorism. The dictionary definitions all seem to contain that concept. Their definitions of "terrorism" refer to the use of terror and fear to try to influence governments, public policy and public action. This is not just a case of a semantic disagreement; it is more important than that. The omission of this concept from the definition extends it much more widely. That is why the definition in the Bill has given rise to much concern that it would cover all kinds of legitimate protests, even, for instance, a political argument in a pub which led to an exchange of blows.
Each of us can, no doubt, think of groups of protestors with whom we agree and others with whom we disagree. We can all deplore violence of any kind in support of both causes with which we agree and those with which we disagree. However, laws exist to combat such violence and it is going too far to brand all such violence as terrorism, which the Bill potentially does. That is the most important difficulty as regards the definition in the Bill.
I turn to the second difference, which is much more minor. Mr Rowe's formulation uses the phrase, "serious damage to property" rather than "serious violence to property". I consider that the phrase "serious damage to property" constitutes better English, but I am not so sure what is the legal difference, if any, between "serious damage to property" and "serious violence to property". However, it strikes me that "damage" is wider than "violence". If, for example, one entered a building and turned all the taps on, that is not a violent action of itself but it could cause an immense amount of damage to the building. There are numerous other, perhaps less homely, examples that one could mention in the context of terrorism.
The third difference is much more important. Unlike the definition in Amendment No. 1, the Government's formulation in the Bill does not specifically include, "interference with electronic systems". I believe that we shall return to so-called "cyber terrorism" throughout the Committee stage. It is important that the definition we are discussing should include cyber terrorism. The only question that arises is whether it needs to be included in the specific legal wording. I rely on the legal expertise of Mr Rowe and the noble and learned Lord in thinking that it is desirable that a phrase of this kind should be included in the definition.
I do not think that there is any doubt in any of our minds at present about the potential dangers of cyber terrorism. If there was, the "love hug" and its effect on

217
the parliamentary system a few days ago should have reminded us of those dangers. As far as we know that was not the work of terrorists but of amateurs, relatively speaking. Cyber terrorism and the use of electronic devices to damage systems in pursuit of political and ideological objectives is taken extremely seriously in the United States. The director of the Cyber-Terrorism Taskforce, who is advising Congress in the United States on this matter, explained the other day that the first official terrorist use of what he called "offensive information operations" occurred two years ago when the Tamil Tigers disrupted Sri Lankan embassy communications in Washington, Ottawa and Korea. As I say, this threat is taken extremely seriously in the United States.
Experts from the Home Office are this week attending a conference in Paris for three days, with other nations in the Group of Eight, to debate ways of harmonising computer crime law in case criminals attempt to use viruses of the kind I have mentioned to attack networks. That conference is, apparently, primarily concerned with crime rather than terrorism, but the effect of such action is the same. No doubt lessons can be learnt at that conference with regard to laws on terrorism as well as laws on crime. Anything that the Minister can tell us about the conference and the lessons to be learnt in terms of this Bill would be valuable.
The fourth difference between the two definitions I am discussing is that the definition in Amendment No. 1 specifically includes a reference to "public utility undertakings". Strictly speaking, this may not be necessary in a legal sense. I think that it is desirable to make the matter clear in case there should be any argument, but I accept that it is a less important difference than some of the others that I have mentioned.
The fifth difference is that the Amendment No. 1 definition includes "the causing of personal injury". That could be taken to refer to, among other things, punishment beatings. There was some discussion about this issue at Second Reading. It is extremely important that punishment beatings in Northern Ireland, which have been practised until recently in a very vicious fashion indeed—by both sides, I hasten to add; not only by terrorists on one side—are seen as terrorist actions, which indeed they are. Punishment beatings by terrorists are intended to control sections of the population—often to control sections of their own population, as it were; their own side of the divide. Punishment beatings are a part of terrorist activity and should be included in the definition.
One can argue that it may not be necessary to define them specifically, but I believe that it is desirable to do so, as do Mr Rowe and the noble and learned Lord. In all these ways, the definition given in Amendment No. 1 is preferable to the definition given in the Bill.
Included in this group of amendments are a number of possible variations of the definition which have been proposed by myself and by others, notably by the Liberal Democrats and by the noble Lord, Lord
218
Beaumont. They cover some of the points to which I have referred. I shall respond to points made later in the debate, but obviously I support the elements of their definitions which are similar to mine.
It is desirable that the definition should be as good as it possibly can be in order to ensure that it will stand up to legal attack and legal examination in the courts in the future. It is also necessary in order that there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that we are not trying to go further than what we all understand by "terrorism"; that we are seeking to ensure that the powers set out in the Bill are available to the police and to the courts in terrorist cases. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Our Amendment No. 3 adds a further element to this interesting and important discussion about how terrorism should be defined. It is worth the Committee taking some time to discuss these issues and to see how far we can get towards a consensus. That may enable us to come back at a later stage with a more effectively targeted definition.
We believe that the definition in the Bill as it now stands is in some respects too wide and in other respects too narrow. We believe that it is too narrow because it requires the relevant terrorist acts to be,
"for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause".
We do not think that motive is a necessary or desirable part of the definition. A motive for terrorism could be none of these; it could be criminal. For example, a group of criminals could get hold of radioactive material and threaten to let off a crude bomb which would scatter it around an inhabited area such as central London unless the Government buys them off by submitting to blackmail.
Criminal terrorism is fairly rare, but it certainly happens. For example, it plainly happens in Columbia, where the drug cartels go in extensively for terrorism. It could happen in many other parts of the world and there is no reason to suppose that it could not happen in the United Kingdom.
We could, of course, deal with that particular point simply by adding the word "criminal" to the words "political, religious or ideological"—but why bother to do that? If acts are being committed which involve deliberate violence being directed against the public or against a government in order to intimidate, why does it matter what the motive is? It simply adds an unnecessary element which has to be proved before a conviction can happen. It possibly opens up the prospect that someone could be charged with a criminal offence because of a political motive and could then claim that he should be acquitted because his motive was not political but ideological. That I think is the kind of "logic-chopping" argument that any definition should seek to avoid.
But the definition is also too wide. First, it does not require violence. I believe that violence is, in most circumstances, an essential element of terrorism, with the exception of cyber terrorism. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Cope: cyber terrorism is clearly

219
something which has to be taken very seriously. We could well end up with something far more damaging than the "love bug", which turned out to be a serious nuisance but not a major economic threat.
Under the Government's definition, a long strike by refuse collectors could create a serious risk to the health of the public. It could, therefore, come within the Government's definition of "terrorism". But that plainly would not be regarded as "terrorism" in any normal use of the word.
Secondly, where the Government's definition refers to violence, it does not require that violence to be unlawful. The actions taken on behalf of Her Majeity's Government and other states in Kosovo and Serbia last year involved serious violence against the person and property; it was, unquestionably, for the purpose of advancing a political cause. It therefore seems to me that that is plainly within the Bill's definition of "terrorism", even though the violence was lawful under the law of the United Kingdom. Plainly some change to the definition—which could be done simply by describing the violence as "unlawful"—is necessary to ensure that we do not end up with that kind of absurdity.
Thirdly, under the Bill the definition of "terrorism" can be triggered by too low a level of violence against property. It has been suggested that the action of Greenpeace in pulling up GM crops might fall within the Bill's definition. I do not think that that is so; it would be difficult to regard that kind of violence as falling within a definition of "serious violence". But the actions in Whitehall and adjacent areas on May Day could certainly be regarded as involving serious violence to property, although I believe that they fell short of the level of violence required to constitute terrorism.
I do not accept the arguments from some quarters that violence against property can never of itself amount to terrorism. Economic terrorism is plainly possible. Indeed, a high proportion of IRA terrorism has been for economic reasons. The bombs in the City of London and in Canary Wharf in recent years were primarily intended to cause economic damage, although, sadly, they caused some loss of human life and injury.
A terrorist campaign involving putting the London Underground out of action or destroying a number of the Thames bridges in London would cause serious damage to the economic well-being of London and would be properly regarded as terrorism even if steps were successfully taken to ensure that it was done with no loss of life or serious injury. So, for example, would attacks on the National Grid. As has already been said, cyber-terrorism holds enormous prospects for economic damage.
I am not convinced that our definition is the best that can be achieved—I think further improvements could be made to it—but it does include what I believe is the core definition of terrorism as far as possible and little, if anything, beyond it.
220
That core definition seems to me to involve these factors. First, there must be serious and unlawful violence, extending that definition of violence to include cyber-terrorism but not actions such as strikes. Secondly, that violence must be directed against the public or a section of the public. Thirdly, where the violence in question is violence against property, it must be at a level which causes serious economic damage to the country as a whole or to a significant part of the country such as London.
Lord Avebury: The examples that the noble Lord gave such as attacks on the London Underground or attacks on the bridges would surely be serious criminal offences under our existing law.
Lord Goodhart: Of course they would be serious criminal offences under our existing law. However, that is not a sufficient reason for saying they should not be regarded as terrorism. The essence of terrorism is not merely that they are serious offences but that they are serious offences directed against the public either in terms of causing physical threats to sections of the public or in causing serious economic damage. That is, for instance, why the powers that are given to control terrorist organisations may he required in cases where the terrorism in question is economic terrorism of this kind.
I believe that our definition in Amendment No. 3 is better than the definition in the Bill. The amended version moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was indeed an improvement on that in the Bill, but that in itself is capable of improvement, particularly in two respects. First, it includes what I regard as an unnecessary reference to the motive for the terrorism. Secondly, the terrorism is once again triggered by too low a test of violence to property. For example, within the Conservative definition, road protesters sabotaging construction machinery by setting it on fire could be committing acts of serious violence for a political or ideological motive and would therefore come within that definition, though I do not think it is appropriate in those circumstances that they should do so. That is certainly criminal damage but it is not damage which causes severe harm to the economy and therefore is not, in my opinion, appropriate to be described as terrorism.
That is an explanation of our views. I await with interest what the Government and other speakers have to say on this matter.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The proposed definition of terrorism in the Bill is wider than that employed in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. That Act stated that,
"'terrorism' means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear".
The new definition in the Terrorism Bill will apply to terrorism connected to matters in Northern Ireland, international terrorism and, for the first time, actions by domestic groups in Great Britain. Additionally, the

221
purpose necessary for actions to be defined as terrorist has been widened beyond the merely political to include religious and ideological causes. The definition of violence has also been extended to serious violence against any person or property.
The definition goes even further in that it also includes acts which create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public. This is not qualified by the need to show that violence has been used to intimidate or coerce a government, the public or a section of the public. It also includes action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation. There are real concerns that, for example, road protesters and those opposed to genetically modified crops will be among those whose activities are branded as terrorist, whereas, whether they are right or wrong, they are clearly at a lower level than that.
The definition has also removed the distinction usually made in the criminal law between acts which injure people and actions which damage property. I do not go quite as far as those who think that property is theft, but I do go as far as those who think theologically that all private property is lent and is not absolute property to be disposed of as anyone wants. Therefore, I think there is an important distinction to be made between the public property about which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has been talking, and private property. We might explore a little in this debate at some stage.
The rationale behind such a distinction is the deterrence of acts which threaten life. Thus crimes that injure or endanger life normally carry higher penalties than those that damage property. No such distinction is made in the definition of terrorism adopted by the present Bill. Therefore, there is a risk, which must be taken seriously, that there will be no incentive under the scheme of the Bill for a terrorist to choose targets which do not endanger other people.
One of the principal concerns about the Bill's definition of terrorism in relation to the application of human rights standards is that it is so broad as to lack certainty. The definition of terrorism in the Bill is crucial because it forms the basis for the application of much of the remainder of the Bill. Since the consequences of the definition are so great, it is important that the scope of the definition should be clearly ascertainable and justifiable so as to ensure the credibility of the legislation and its enforcement mechanisms.
In analysing the proposals contained in the Terrorism Bill against the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is important to bear in mind that hitherto consideration of the laws of terrorism by the court has been concerned with particular types of political violence. The broadening of the definition of terrorism to include actions undertaken for religious or ideological causes and the inclusion as terrorist organisations of domestic groups is likely to put the proposed terrorist laws to even more stringent examination under the convention, both at
222
the Court of Human Rights and later in domestic courts when the main provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 come into force in October 2000.
This is a very, very important definition. There was a great deal of debate about it in another place which, as has been said, was really indeterminate in the end and no one, even the Government, appears to be absolutely certain as to what they want the answers to be. I hope my amendments in this area are helpful. I very much look forward to hearing the debate at this stage and hope that some kind of consensus may arise which will lead to us having a more focused debate at Report stage than was had in another place or than we are likely to have this evening.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I find myself in the position of agreeing with all of the speeches made so far. All of us are seeking to, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in his report,
"strike the right balance between the needs of security and the rights and liberties of the individual".
That is one of the noble and learned Lord's four principles. All of us are struggling, as must the Government and their advisers have struggled, to find a definition that is not over-inclusive, in that it hits at a wider target than is really necessary, or under-inclusive, in not including conduct which deserves to be stigmatised as terrorism and made unlawful, subjected to severe sanctions and conferring on the police and the security service necessary but very wide powers. That is why all of us are concerned to achieve reasonable legal certainty in the definition of what constitutes terrorism.
My noble friend Lord Goodhart explained very fully the reasons why we have put forward the amendment and so I shall not take the time of the Committee by adding very much to what he said. But I should like to make one or two points. First, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, who once said in relation to Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911—perhaps it was Lord Franks who said it first—that it was a blunderbuss. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said that it should be replaced by an Armalite rifle. It is important that the definition in the Bill of terrorism should be more like an Armalite rifle than a blunderbuss. We are concerned that in some respects there is unnecessary vagueness and over-inclusiveness.
There is a great deal to commend the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. We can see advantages in each other's definitions and are searching towards a consensus definition. No one has achieved a perfect definition. Amendment No. 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is a useful amendment. Its disadvantage is that it retains the requirement for terrorist action to be political, religious or ideological in motivation, which may well be problematic, and it also requires that the threat of violence is,
"to intimidate or coerce a government, the public, or any section of the public".

223
That has the advantage of securing some kind of proportionality requirement and is modelled on the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
Amendment No. 5, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, restricts the application of the Bill to,
"unlawful action which is intended to intimidate or coerce a government, the public or any section of the public".
That is in line with the review of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I prefer the amendment in our names because what constitutes intimidation or coercion is very unclear and could also be unnecessarily restrictive. Amendment No. 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, restricting the application of terrorist legislation to what he describes as,
"serious violence against property which endangers the life of, or risks serious injury to, another",
would exclude much economic sabotage or terrorist activity directed against infrastructure, including cyber-terrorism, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart indicated.
We have difficulties with those amendments for those reasons. We all seek a fair balance and we are not satisfied that the Government's wording is sufficiently inclusive and in some respects it hits too wide.
Lord Taylor of Giryfe: I hope that the Committee will be able to come up with a consensus and a clear definition in this matter. I should like the Minister to say a few words about our international obligations in connection with the definition of terrorism with regard to both the European Court and any other international court which deals with these matters. I ask that because I am reasonably familiar with a case, which is outstanding, in Greenock sheriff court. Three ladies of deep religious conviction and associated with a pacifist religious group took a boat, went out to a Trident submarine sitting in Holy Loch, obtained access to the submarine and promptly put £40,000 of computer equipment into the Holy Loch. That was their protest.
Under the definitions in the Bill it would appear that they would be guilty of action against property. However, that is not what the sheriff of Greenock sheriff court decided. She was led evidence of the findings of an international court which deliberated on this matter and argued that since Trident is an offence against humanity they were quite justified in taking the action they took because Trident in itself is illegal except when applied in self-defence. The three ladies were acquitted and under Scottish law they cannot be retried. They were acquitted on the grounds that their action, which in the Bill's definition would be an offence, did not constitute an offence because they were avoiding a greater offence against humanity.
I am sorry that I have not given my noble friend notice of this matter but it is an interesting case. It arises from the issues we have been discussing concerning what is an offence against property. I
224
would be happy if the Minister could give us some guidance on the implications of this matter as it is affected by European or international jurisdiction.
Lord Hylton: At Second Reading there was general agreement, with the exception, of course, of the government, that the Bill is too widely drafted and perhaps nowhere more so than in its definition of terrorism. I should therefore like to ask the Government whether they have studied the other current definitions that exist in other jurisdictions. In particular, have they examined how those have worked out in practice and are they too wide or too narrow?
I turn to Amendment No. 1. It is vitally important that the definition should establish that the person in question has an intention to commit terrorism—in legal language, that he has the mens rea.> Amendment No. 1 seems to wish to do that by bringing in the words "intimidate or coerce". I notice that similar words occur again in Amendment No. 5.
I move on to the following words, "a government". I would prefer to see in their place a phrase such as, "the institutions of democratic government". That wording was put forward by the Northern Ireland human rights commission, a semi-statutory body.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, rightly pointed out that the phrase, "serious damage to property", is almost certainly preferable to the Government's phrase of "violence" to property. Perhaps I may add that, as drafted, the Bill refers to any property anywhere in the world, regardless of whether that property is valuable or important.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was right to use the words "unlawful violence" in Amendment No. 3 because we do not want to include, for example, a strike held by nurses. Furthermore, he and others were, in my view, correct to mention economic damage and to stress that it should be "serious" economic damage.
I conclude by expressing the hope that a consensus will be reached by the time we reach Report stage and that we shall end up with a generally agreed definition.
6 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I think we shall be in serious difficulty if we retain the definition in Clause 1 as it stands. My noble friend Lord Goodhart touched on this when he pointed out the distinction between acts that might be committed by a terrorist against the London Underground or the bridges crossing the river Thames, on the one hand, and the kind of violence against property exhibited during the May Day demonstrations, on the other. No one in their right mind would suggest that the person who daubed the statue of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square should have been convicted of an act of terrorism. In my opinion it was bad enough that he was sent to prison at all for an offence of daubing graffiti, but it certainly was not what an ordinary member of the public would consider to be a serious act of violence.

225
The difficulty with the definition lies in the fact that, in the law as it now stands, that phrase is not well understood. I am advised that it occurs in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in which powers have been given to the police to search people without the need for reasonable grounds if an act of serious violence is feared. The problem with the provision is that it has never been tested in the courts. For that reason, people who are searched under the terms of that provision do not think it would be easy to go to court and challenge the interpretation of the police by saying that what was contemplated was not serious violence within the meaning of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.
The Government need to convince noble Lords that the phrase would be easily interpreted by the courts and that it would not be applied in cases where common sense would dictate that a person should be charged with a lesser offence.
Another interesting point that noble Lords should bear in mind when deciding on the definition is the incompatibility between Clause 1 and what is proposed under Clause 59(2)(e) where reference is made to a person who commits the offence of inciting terrorism overseas. The essential element of that offence is that the act to be incited should, if committed in England or Wales, constitute one of the offences listed in subsection (2) of Clause 59. That includes, in subsection (e),
"an offence under section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (endangering life by damaging property)".
The test of a terrorist act overseas is far less rigid than that which we shall apply in the United Kingdom. I would prefer to see the two definitions aligned. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable that a person should be charged with an offence of terrorism if the damage to property is such as to cause loss of life or to threaten to cause loss of life. I do not know whether the examples given by my noble friend fall into that category.
It could be argued that, in a case where someone damaged the National Grid so that electricity was suspended in a certain area and people dependent on artificial lungs had their lives put in jeopardy, an offence of terrorism might apply. However, to include such a general definition of damage to property as now stands in the clause is extremely dangerous.
That is especially the case when one considers the term "ideology". That, too, is undefined. I do not know what the Government mean by "ideology". Perhaps they will explain it. For example, let us suppose that one's ideological belief is that housing is an absolute right, that property is theft, and that one is entitled to break into a house owned by the local authority and take possession of it. Are we to say here that that is an act of terrorism? We may disagree with the act—I do not like squatters—but to pretend that such an offence should be included in a definition of terrorism would be taking things much too far.
226
Whether we accept the definition proposed by my noble friend, which personally I think provides the right answer, or that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, the fact is that the definition in the Bill is grossly unsatisfactory and needs to be amended.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had an extremely helpful and useful debate this afternoon. I am very impressed by the contributions made by all Members of the House because they have been delivered so constructively and thoughtfully. As I work through my remarks I shall try to deal with as many of the points that have been raised under the various amendments as I can. I hope that noble Lords will give me the time needed to do that, because I believe that this is the most important area of discussion and debate on the legislation before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was right to remind us that we must ensure that we deal with the Armalite rather than the blunderbuss. That was a helpful reminder of how we need to consider this whole debate: how wide should we make the definition and how should we narrow it down at certain points? That offers the parameters for the debate and illustrates the difficulties we face in getting this just right. I am grateful, too, for the sympathy many noble Lords have expressed as regards the difficulty of the exercise.
Perhaps I may make a number of opening remarks about definition and then go through the various points that have been raised. If I repeat some of the remarks I made in the debate on Second Reading, then I apologise to noble Lords. However, I am sure that some of those comments will bear repetition. First, I shall explain the consideration behind the Government's definition, which draws heavily on the existing definition in the prevention of terrorism Act. That defines terrorism as the use of violence for political ends, including putting the public or any section of the public in fear. That definition has stood the test of time. It has not changed since the prevention of terrorism Act was first introduced in 1974. It has, in its rough and ready way, worked well. We took the view that the definition should be changed only where it was necessary to do so.
Secondly, we considered carefully the definition proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in his report. The new elements introduced were the application of the definition to all forms of terrorism; the raising of the threshold to "serious violence"; the inclusion of threats as well as acts; and the inclusion of additional "qualifying motivations"—so social and ideological as well as political objectives were included; and the requirement that, for an action to be classed as terrorist, it must be done to intimidate or coerce a government or the public. The noble and learned Lord proposed also that the definition should cover,
"the terrorist who without using violence sets out to disrupt vital computer installations such as air traffic systems thereby causing great danger to life".

227
We agreed with the noble and learned Lord on most of his conclusions and we believe that our definition covers virtually all of those points.
The noble and learned Lord offered a helpful reminder to us at Second Reading. He said that there was great difficulty in finding a satisfactory definition. He went on:
"Indeed, I was unable to do so and I suspect that none of us will succeed … [but] we must do our best".—[Official Report, 6/4/00; col. 1444.]
That is the spirit in which we should conduct our debates as we work through the Bill.
Thirdly, as now, there is no terrorism offence linked with the definition. What the definition does is to trigger the availability to the police and others of certain powers and offences. We need to understand it in that context. The role of the definition is to set the parameters within which the powers and offences under the Bill may operate.
Fourthly, and importantly, we took the view that it was essential that the definition should cover all the ground that experience over the past 25 or more years, and our assessment of future threats, suggest should be covered—so that the police and other security agencies always have at their disposal the powers that they need to combat terrorism. In working up the new definition we consulted the police and other agencies closely and took careful account of their views. While we of course recognise the importance of the circumstances being proportionate in which the additional offences and powers under the Bill are available, we should be failing in our duty if the definition of terrorism did not extend to the full range of contexts where security advice and experience suggest they are needed. A judgment has to be made based on security and other considerations. The fact that some of the amendments before the Committee seek to limit the scope of the definition, while others seek to extend it, indicates the complexities involved.
Fifthly, and finally, while the Government would never be so complacent as to suggest that there is no chance that the definition could be improved upon—which is why we have been grateful to consider alternatives that have been proposed—we continue to believe that the definition on the face of the Bill is, roughly speaking, the right one. We believe that it balances correctly the need to ensure that the definition is only as wide as it needs to be with the need to ensure that the police are confident that they will always have at their disposal the powers and offences that they need to fight terrorism.
I now turn to points raised in relation to particular amendments, and, first, to those of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. We believe that the amendments tabled—
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the Minister turns to amendments tabled by other noble Lords, perhaps I may ask him a question relating to Clause 1(1) as it now stands, which causes me a problem as regards what he rightly referred to as proportionality. The problem is this. On the Government's definition,
228
paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1(1) refer to conduct which does not necessarily give rise to a serious risk to the public at large. In the words of paragraph (a) it is conduct that,
"involves serious violence against any person or property",
and in (b),
"endangers the life of any person".
Then there is the word "or", and paragraph (c) refers to conduct which,
"creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public".
So only in paragraph (c) does one come for the first time to the idea of conduct that threatens the public at large. Is there not a problem with a definition of terrorism that triggers later in the Bill the use of very strong counter-terrorist powers to combat action that does not give rise to a serious threat to public wellbeing? Does it not create a potential problem under the European Convention on Human Rights when it comes to using those very wide and necessary powers to deal with conduct which does not threaten the public or a section of the public?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord raises an interesting point. We have taken the view that the Bill is compatible with the convention and that serious violence against personal property or action that endangers the life of any person can in its outcome create a serious risk to the health and safety of the public or a section of the public. That is the important part of the definition and it is on that that we rely. I shall study the noble Lord's comments and reflect on them, but we are content that the provisions are compatible with ECHR considerations.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he reflect also on the fact that the Goodhart amendment is focused throughout on,
"directed against the public or a section of the public".
That is why that amendment ensures proportionality. Will the Minister reflect on that point when reading the debate?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I happily undertake to reflect on it. I make no promises in that regard. I should like to deal with the points as we work through the Bill.
Perhaps I may express some of the concerns that we have with the alternative definition suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. It provided a useful starting-point for debate. The noble Lord talked at some length about the use of the word "damage", not "violence", in connection with property. Mr John Rowe, the annual reviewer of the operation of the prevention of terrorism Act and the emergency provisions Act has suggested that "damage" is the more usual word to use in connection with property. We recognise that, but prefer the term "violence" because it is, we consider, more appropriate to the sort of conduct which is normally considered to be terrorism. Action which seriously damages property but does not involve serious violence—for example, graffiti, to take up the

229
point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—might seriously damage a building and deserve punishment, but we are not persuaded that in itself it reaches the threshold to be considered terrorism. Therein lies one difficulty with that definition.
As to the injection of the words "intimidation" or,
"coercion of a government or the public element",
we consider those proposals to be undesirable. In most cases we think it would be unnecessary, as most terrorist acts are clearly done with the intention of causing fear or getting a government to change their policy on a particular issue. But cases could occur where it might not be obvious whether that was the case—for example, the bombing of an animal laboratory at night. In those circumstances it could not necessarily be safely argued that that was done to intimidate the public, as they would not be present; nor could it be safely argued that the intention was to coerce the government as the primary focus. Presumably, it would be to disrupt the work of the laboratory and the related commercial concern. Yet we would take the view that such actions are forms of terrorism. Similar considerations might apply in connection with a terrorist assassination attack. Depending on the victim, it might again be unsafe to assume that the intention was to intimidate the public, or government. Again, the target might be a commercial concern.
We presume that subsection (2)(a) is designed to catch interference with computer systems. But the formula "electronic systems" is very broad and would probably catch other systems perhaps not meant to fall within the ambit of the definition—for instance, CCTV systems or possibly even a public address system.
We recognise the concerns that underlie this amendment, particularly in the wake of the recent so-called "Love Bug". Subsection (1)(c) of Clause 1 is designed to cover any action (including, therefore, any computer-related action) which creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public. The Bill already covers the effects of some computer interference, but to go further and catch all computer interference would be a significant step which we would not take lightly and it would not be without its difficulties. Having said that, clearly this is an important issue, and I should like to reflect further on whether something more specific is required in the Bill. I shall advise the House of the outcome of our deliberations at Report stage. The noble Lord raises an important and significant issue.
The amendment provides in subsection (2)(c) that "violence" includes personal injury. We believe that that is also unnecessary as "violence" carries within it the concept of personal injury. Although it is ultimately a matter for the courts, we expect so-called punishment beatings to be caught by the phrase "serious violence". It is certainly not our intention to exclude such actions by raising the threshold to serious violence. The Committee will note that we have a
230
number of concerns about this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on the points that I have made and not press his amendment.
I turn next to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and in so doing I shall pick up some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. At this stage the Government are not attracted by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord and his noble friends. We believe that the insertion of the term "unlawful" is an undesirable addition. We accept that the vast majority of terrorist acts are also unlawful: clearly, bombings, shootings and so on are criminal activities. Terrorists are criminals. But we can conceive of circumstances in which an act occurs, or even violence under the noble Lord's definition, that may not be unlawful. We believe that the definition would extend also to those acts. For example, given that the noble Lord's definition of "violence" includes interference with the functioning of electronic equipment, it is hypothetically possible that an employee may interfere with CCTV cameras, or even computers (with which we believe that part of the amendment is concerned). Depending on the employee's role in the firm and the nature of the interference, it is conceivable that that action may not be unlawful.
Take the example of subsection (1)(c) which deals with actions—under Clause 120 they include omissions—which create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public. An employee may deliberately omit to add a chemical to the sewerage system with the effect that public health is put at risk. Depending on the nature of his action and contract, that act may not be unlawful. We believe that it is wrong to create a situation in which a terrorist might escape prosecution on what would effectively be a technicality.
Lord Goodhart: How does the Minister deal with the Kosovo problem? In that situation the Government and many members of the Armed Forces would be engaged in acts which, technically, would come within the definition of terrorism in this Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is a useful issue to raise. Understatement always helps! Obviously, this is a matter to which we have given careful consideration. We do not believe that those actions come within the definition.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Kosovo problem, as it has been described, is a very real one. The noble Lord will recall that in my speech at Second Reading I referred to remarks made by my right honourable friend Tom King in another place in the course of debates on this Bill. My right honourable friend pointed out that during the Gulf war, when he was Secretary of State for Defence, he launched considerable violence, in the form of marine commandos and a number of extremely fierce aircraft, against other people. He believed that as Secretary of State for Defence he and those in the RAF and Royal Marines engaged in that action were involved in serious violence which was intended to coerce

231
governments and so on. It seems to me, as it did to my right honourable friend, that that is an extremely serious problem. It may be that the Minister has had time to reflect on it a little further and is now able to make a contribution to this particular difficulty.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord is very helpful. I said that I did not believe that our Armed Forces acting in the course of their duties would fall within the definition. The general principle in law is that statutes do not bind the Crown, unless by express provision or necessary implication. That covers the military and others in the service of the Crown. With one minor and fairly technical exception in Clause 118, the offences in the Terrorism Bill do not apply to Crown servants. I believe that that little difficulty is dealt with.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may pursue the matter a little further. The noble Lord assumes that the example of Kosovo is the only one where the lawfulness of the action is called into question. In English law there is the doctrine of necessity which was invoked in a case involving the hijacking of an aircraft of Sudan Airways. Although on the surface it was an act of terrorism, the defendants pleaded—I believe that the matter was successfully referred back to the House of Lords—that the appalling conditions in Iraq had caused them to take the step of hijacking the aircraft which allowed them to come to London. That defence was given serious consideration in the Court of Appeal and referred back to the House of Lords. If a person argued that he acted through "duress of circumstances"—that was the expression used by the Court of Appeal—according to the doctrine of necessity he would be acting lawfully. That set of circumstances is not taken into consideration in the definition.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that that might be a defence in any future case. It is hard to foresee those circumstances. I understand and appreciate the virtue of the doctrine of necessity, and why it is argued, but the case that the noble Lord describes is effectively a situation of war. In those circumstances I believe that rather different rules apply.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister suggested that Clause 118, which exempts Crown servants, might assist in this process. That clause refers entirely to Parts III and IV of the Bill and provides that,
"The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for sections 15 to 23 and 39 to apply to persons in the public service of the Crown".
The only provision that provides an exemption is in Clause 19. That is extremely limited and is concerned with the disclosure of information to do with financial offences. I do not believe that Clause 118 provides any assistance to the noble Lord in this particular case.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As to that issue, my understanding is that it is the only provision in the Bill which does not cover the normal rule. The important point is that it is an exception clause.
232
If the point of the noble Lord's amendment is to try to ensure that action taken in connection with a legitimate trade dispute is not caught, we are not sure that the amendment does the trick in any case. The term "unlawful" also covers torts and breaches of contract as well as criminal acts, and strikers can commit such acts in the course of industrial action. Indeed, they may also commit criminal offences such as obstructing the highway. So not only could the amendment prove to be overly restrictive, it might not fully achieve what it sets out to do.
We are also concerned that the definition proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is triggered where violence is directed against the public or a section of the public. I am aware that the limbs at (a) and (b) of the definition provide that this phrase covers circumstances where death, serious injury or a threat to the health of the public is caused, or where there is a threat to national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country. I have to say to noble Lords that at the very least such an approach puts an enormous strain on the phrase "directed against the public". I can think of examples of acts which would be caught through the limbs at (a) and (b) but which would in no ordinary sense of' the phrase he directed against the public—for instance, the assassination of an individual politician, or something like the bombing of the Grand Hotel during the Conservative Party conference. In both cases the Government would be more obviously the target than the public. Moreover, the way the formula is constructed means, I think, that other actions are excluded which the public might be more likely to feel were directed against them or at least actions which more directly affected them. I am thinking here of actions, for instance, against furriers, or sporting events like the Grand National. The bombing or a serious attack on such interests could impact more directly on some sections of the public than some of the actions caught by the formula as it stands. But they are not caught as I read it. We consider this to be a fairly fundamental weakness.
The amendment also provides that all interference with the functioning of electronic equipment, even if no damage is caused to the equipment, is caught within the definition, although the ensuing limbs at (a) and (b) limit the circumstances in which it applies. The formula chosen is very wide and may catch activity that it is not intended to catch—for instance, tampering with CCTV cameras. And we are not sure that the syntax of the amendment quite works here. However, setting aside those essentially technical points, as I indicated, we have considerable sympathy with the concerns underlying the proposal. Recent events have demonstrated the effect that computer viruses can have on a whole range of interests and systems.
More fundamentally, we have significant concerns about the ground covered by limbs (a) and (b) of the amendment. In particular, we are concerned that it is too narrow. As I have already touched upon, our reading is that bombs or other attacks which seriously damaged, or even destroyed, commercial or private

233
interests would not be caught within this definition if there were no risk to life or the health of the public, or if there were no threat to national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country or part of the country. I think that such a distinction is wrong in policy terms because bombs or other attacks which destroy animal laboratories, synagogues or symbolic buildings such as perhaps Stormont should be caught even if the perpetrators undertake the attacks carefully at night so that there is no serious risk to life. To me, and I think to many others, such attacks would constitute terrorism but the definition in the amendment would not necessarily cover them.
I also think that this part of the amendment is wrong on pragmatic grounds. As we have already observed, one of the main purposes of the definition is to indicate when anti-terrorist powers may be used. The police view is that it could seriously hinder their operational effectiveness in combating terrorism if they could only use their powers once they were persuaded that there was a risk to life or the equivalent. Valuable time could be lost before sufficient intelligence or evidence emerged to confirm that life was likely to be threatened and the police ability to respond would be reduced accordingly. There is no reason, we believe, in policy terms why a distinction should be drawn between actions which seriously damage property and those which injure people and we believe that creating such a distinction could have serious operational consequences for the police.
A number of points were raised by Members of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to the G8 meeting in Paris on computer crime. I understand that that is part of a regular meeting of a high-tech crime sub-group of the G8 countries on transnational organised crime. Its focus suggests that it is organised crime rather than just terrorism but improvements for international co-operation in this area may have considerably wider benefits.
I shall have to write to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe on the specific case he raised. I was grateful to my noble friend for his contribution on the definitions of terrorism at international level. The Scottish case is interesting. The Government are satisfied that their possession of nuclear weapons is entirely consistent with international law. There can surely be no dispute that damaging computers on a submarine should be capable of being caught by the criminal law. The question as regards computers is an important issue.
I hope that I have covered the points raised. If I have missed something, no doubt noble Lords will not hesitate to mention it. I shall be happy to take their points further if I can.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I apologise for troubling the Minister again, but I asked him to consider the compatibility of the definition in Clause 1 with that of a terrorist act overseas in Clause 59(2)(e) which limits the damage to
234
property to an offence under Section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, endangering life by damaging property.
Why should the definition of the damage to property be more limited in terrorist acts overseas than domestically? What is the Government's reason for having a different definition of terrorism according to where the act is committed?
Lord Bassam of BrightonI am grateful to the noble Lord for his sharp reading of the Bill. I do not think that one definition counters another. However, I shall study the provision more closely and, if possible, deal with it at greater length.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The Minister may wish to reflect on this. The answer to my noble friend may be that in Clause 59 the offence is predicated upon inciting another person,
"to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and … the act would, if committed in England and Wales, constitute one of the offences listed in subsection (2)".
The whole premise is that it is an act of terrorism within the definition in Clause 1. Therefore the definition does not seem wider in respect of an act committed overseas than an act committed in this country. I do not know whether the Minister has a view on that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has the benefit of being a noble and learned Lord. I suspect that his interpretation is right. That was my understanding and reading of the relationship between those two clauses.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sure the whole Committee was enormously encouraged when about two minutes into his speech, the Minister went into what I call "Fagin" mode, saying that "he thinks he'd better think it out again". After the debate on the various definitions in Clause 11 am sure he is right to do so.
However, from that point on his speech degenerated somewhat. He started to chip away at the various arguments advanced. I do not mind that because presumably he was setting his own parameters as to what he would or would not consider. That is fair enough. However, he made two remarks which somewhat surprised me: first, that in his view graffiti would not be violence against property; and, secondly, that the bombing of an animal laboratory at night might well come into the same category. However, although no one has yet referred to it, subsection (3) of Clause 1 states:
"In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation".
Therefore, were the two cases exemplified by the Minister to be committed by members of, or in furtherance of, a proscribed organisation they would come automatically under the Bill's classification of terrorism. Therefore, in his Fagin mode, which he says

235
he will go into, will he be good enough to consider the effects of subsection (3) on any consideration that he gives to subsections (1) and (2)?
Lord Hylton: Before the Minister replies to that, he twice mentioned the bombing of animal laboratories by night so as not to cause human casualties. I believe that he mentioned that in defence of the Government's definition. Will he accept that such actions could be properly dealt with under statutes concerned with causing explosions, arson or criminal damage? Those were the types of issue that I had in mind when I argued at Second Reading that the Bill goes unnecessarily wide.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I hope that I conveyed the impression to the Committee that we as a government have a fairly fixed view of what the definition should be, that that view is reflected in the Bill as it stands, but that, of course, we need to listen, as we always do, to the important points that are made in a debate such as this. No doubt many noble Lords are much better at definition than I am, particularly as I am a non-lawyer.
Particularly in respect of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I have indicated that we shall look very closely at the issue of computers and whether or not they need to be enclosed specifically within the definition that we have chosen. Of course, I undertake to reflect on all the various points made by Members of the Committee in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, again asked a question that he raised at Second Reading, and I believe that it bears some respect. In his contribution the noble Lord challenged me to look again at the relationship between Clause 3 and the other clauses with regard to the definition. I shall give further thought to that.
I return to my point about graffiti. Although it is certainly unpleasant and unsightly, I cannot think of any circumstances, certainly as we consider the matter this evening, in which one might consider it to be a form of terrorism. However, of course, we must all take serious note of the damage and distress that it causes. In effect, in many instances it is a form of criminal damage.
This has been a useful debate. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who said that he hoped that the debate would help us to focus down rather more when we come to consider the definition at Report stage. I suspect that that is what we shall be able to do. As I said, after giving further thought to the matter, I shall come back to the issue of computers and their place in any subsequent definition. Of course, I shall look carefully at the various points that have been made during the course of this useful debate.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was happier with the Minister when he said that it was a thought-provoking debate and that he would give consideration to this and that than when he said to my noble friend Lord
236
Skelmersdale that the Government had a fixed view of what the definition should be. I hope that we have indeed succeeded in provoking thought on a number of the issues raised. I believe it is certain that we shall return to them later.
I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I refer back to some of the points. I was attracted by the use of the word "unlawful", as supported by the Liberal Democrats' amendment and in their speeches, because of what was described as the "Kosovo problem". It seems to me that that is one area where further thought needs to be given.
However, the Minister also had my support when he talked about assassination. As I see it, one of the difficulties with the Liberal Democrat amendment is that it refers only to attacks on the public or a section of the public. I do not believe that one person can be a section of the public. During the time—
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for raising that point. I believe that that is a fair criticism of our definition. If we are to bring back this matter on Report, it certainly needs to be looked at again to ensure that it covers that point.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was about to say that during my time as a Member of another place, four Members of Parliament were murdered by the IRA; three of them in individual assassinations, as noble Lords will recall, and one at the Grand Hotel in Brighton. Those specific assassinations were, by anyone's definition, designed absolutely for terrorist purposes.
So far as concerns the bombing of the Grand Hotel, it seems to me that that was an attack on a section of the public. The Minister seemed to suggest that it was not. It was an attack not only on members of the government and Members of Parliament, but much of the damage and several of the deaths were inflicted on people who were either supporters of the Conservative Party, attending the conference or looking after the hotel. Many of the people involved were not members of the Conservative Party but were involved in other ways with the conference. It is obviously extremely important to include an action of that kind.
Some attention has been given in the debate to the question of whether damage to property should be included in the definition only if it endangers life and not if it simply damages property. As most Members of the Committee know, on a large number of occasions property in Northern Ireland has been damaged but there has been no loss of life or injury to people because warnings have been given with the deliberate intention of permitting the building in question to be cleared. Nevertheless, the action has been terrorist in purpose and it has been applied by both sides. I do not make a partisan point, as it were, in the Northern Ireland context in drawing attention to that point.
Other terrorist actions, such as letting off bombs or firing guns in the course of training, obviously do not hurt anyone. They take place deliberately in the most

237
remote spot possible in order that terrorists may refine their weapons, for example, mortars, and so on, and refine their techniques in using those weapons. Those are definitely terrorist actions in anyone's book and should, I believe, be covered in this case.
Therefore, I believe that a considerable amount of serious damage to property takes place which nevertheless does not kill or injure people and, in fact, is not intended to do so. Of course, from time to time people have been injured or killed as a result of action which was not intended to injure or kill but did so because the warning was insufficiently specific or because of other reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the recent daubing of the statue of Sir Winston Churchill. Quite frankly, that does not seem to me to be covered by any of the definitions on offer this afternoon; nor should it be. It was, of course, highly offensive and misguided and no doubt constituted criminal damage. However, that is different from saying that it should be covered within the definition of terrorism.
In talking about electronic systems, the Minister seemed to dismiss an attack on closed circuit television systems, which are included in the definition that I have put forward of electronic systems, but are not in some of the other definitions that are available. I am sure that some Members of the Committee realise that in Northern Ireland closed circuit television has been an absolutely vital protection against attack. Every police station in Northern Ireland has elaborate systems to monitor, for example, car parks and other areas to ensure that the police are aware if a mortar is placed in a position from which it could be fired at a police station. To damage a closed circuit television system of that kind is a terrorist act.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I want to seek some clarification. Is it the noble Lord's intention to include CCTV systems with that amendment? Was that a deliberate intention in moving the amendment because that is something extra to the way in which we originally understood it?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I think that all these electronic systems can be the subject of terrorist attack. I do not think it is simply confined to computer systems. One has to be careful because nowadays television systems are controlled by computers. More or less every electronic system, including motor cars and all sorts of things, are controlled by chips and computers and so on. A reference to computers probably covers most of those things as well.
There are also computers containing police intelligence which is an extremely important point. There was a big attack on the forensic science laboratory in Northern Ireland while I was a Minister there. That is an example of trying to attack those who are dealing with terrorism, making their lives much more difficult and their efforts less effective.
There is the big point, as I described it at the start, of whether or not the phrase "in some form" of intimidating and coercing the government, the public
238
or any section of the public should be included, and whether the concept of fear should be included. The Minister said in his comments that they started by building on the Protection against Terrorism Act, a definition of putting the public in fear, but what they have done in this definition is to take out the concept of putting the public in fear. There are different ways in which one can express it. They have taken out the concept from the definition. That is something about which I think the Minister and his colleagues should reflect very carefully in the course of further consideration of this definition. It is a very important definition, as we have all agreed. It is a very difficult definition, as we have all agreed. We are all agreed also that we want, if possible, to have an agreed definition that will fulfil the desires which all of us share to a fair degree.
This has been an important debate and we look forward to hearing the results of the Minister's reflections. I will certainly be reflecting further on the issues that have been discussed and the points made. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, after ("threat,") insert ("of action which is, or appears to be,").
The noble Lord said: This is a much smaller point. The Captain of the Gentleman at Arms will he pleased to know that progress is likely to be a little swifter on the remaining amendments to be considered today.
The point occurred to me in discussing this Bill and its terms that there are sometimes actions—there were some bombs in London not so long ago of this character—which look like terrorist actions when they happen. Therefore, the police go into anti-terrorist mode. They use some of the powers incorporated in this Bill. It may subsequently turn out that these were not terrorist actions but actions of some kind of criminal nut, as it were, in which case it may be that the actions taken by the police which probably led to the arrest of the person concerned, might be invalidated by it being shown that this was not a terrorist action and the police were not entitled, in retrospect, to take the action that they did. That is why the suggestion is made in Amendment No. 2 that action which appears to be terrorist action should, nevertheless, be able to be followed by a police cordon and all the other powers which come later in the Bill.
I realise that this could give rise to the use of the antiterrorist powers and the anti-terrorist police operations when they are proved ultimately not to be necessary. At the same time I would not want to invalidate the prosecution of someone who is not a terrorist, but who, nevertheless, let off bombs or took

239
some action which appeared, in the first instance, to be a terrorist action. It is quite a small point but not without its own importance. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suspect that we have all been making faster progress.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. He has clarified the meaning of the amendment. It would appear to us that it is an action designed to be covered in his "definitional" thinking for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause where a judgment has to be made.
We have some sympathy with the spirit behind the amendment which we take to ensure that police and others can be confident that they can act even if they are not 100 per cent sure whether a qualifying motivation is present as long as such motivation appears to be present. I trust that is the right understanding of the proposal.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Yes.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is important that the police are not needlessly deterred from acting to combat terrorism. However, we believe on reflection that the amendment is unnecessary. As we see it, provided the police are able to advance a reasonable case for their belief that a qualifying motive was present this should he sufficient. The fact that there have been no difficulties to the application of the current definition, which does speak of the use of violence for political ends without qualification, underlines that there may not be a difficulty in practice. I think we should rely on that.
Furthermore, I am concerned that inserting the concept of "appears" into the definition might give rise to uncertainty and drafting difficulties. I ask the question: how would it work in the context of the terrorist property provisions where the test might then be whether the funds in question were being used for the purposes of an action which is or appears to be done to advance a political, religious or ideological cause? We think that there could be difficulties in applying the "appears to" concept in the context of the decision about the proscription of groups.
I am not persuaded that the approach proposed by the noble Lord in his amendment, which I am sure was intended to be helpful, would work in all the contexts linked into the definition of the Bill.
I hope that on the basis of that explanation the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Does the noble Lord agree with me that Part V of the Bill dealing with counter-terrorist powers gives necessary latitude because, for example, in Clause 41 it provides:
"A constable may arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist."
Similarly, a magistrate under Clause 42 may—
"issue a warrant … if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting …"
240
and so on. Is not the point made by the Minister buttressed by Part V, making this amendment unnecessary?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, as ever, has been very helpful. My understanding of those clauses is that they do provide that necessary flexibility. In a sense, that is what we require in the operation of this part of the legislation. I think that there will be common consent and agreement around the House to that point.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: One always learns something in this House in the course of these debates. I will certainly reflect on what has been said on this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 9 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert ("except in countries with which the United Kingdom is at war,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is moved to deal with the Kosovo or Gulf War problem or however one likes to describe it. Most of us agreed in the course of the earlier debate that there is a problem in this regard in relation to what happens when there are countries to which the United Kingdom is antagonistic, is at war, or some other definition—mine is not perfect—and there are also groups in this country which may be supporting the opposition in the country concerned. One can think of numerous examples, all the way from the French Resistance and so on and the operations of the SOE and others right the way up to much more recent examples.
There is a problem. My amendment does not solve it entirely. But it raises the problem and it is at least a step in the right direction. Of course, we could rely on the designation of countries as either good or bad, as it were—if that is not too "cartoon" a way of expressing it—by the Secretary of State. That is not a very good way of dealing with the matter. But we certainly could do that. I have tried to introduce a more objective way of expressing the matter in Amendment No. 10. It is an important point on which, I believe, the Minister is already going to reflect as a result of our earlier discussions. I certainly think he should do so. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned the Kosovo problem. But is it not the case that the United Kingdom was never formally at war with Serbia?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That is one reason why I am not sure that my definition is entirely satisfactory.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: This is a very difficult series of points. I did not move my Amendment No. 9 because I thought that it might be better to

241
raise the issue in the rather wider context of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. It goes back further than the noble Lord suggested. Members of the Committee on the Liberal Benches will remember that Mr Campbell-Bannerman asked the very pertinent question, "When is a war not a war?" in his famous speech at the Guildhall. He answered by saying, "When it is waged by methods of barbarism". A whole can of worms is being opened here in relation to how much we should apply to these matters when war is either declared or has not been declared.
To a certain extent, where war has been declared, we are governed by the Geneva Conventions. But it is important that the law of the land states what should be done under most conceivable circumstances and I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say. I certainly look forward to arriving at something rather more satisfactory by Report stage.
Lord Bach: As Amendment No. 9 was not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I can considerably shorten my reply to this group of amendments. I deal solely with Amendment No. 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. Indeed, some of what I have to say was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bassam in reply to the long debate on the first group of amendments.
The Government are right in assuming that the intention behind the amendment—indeed, it has been made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley—is to ensure that the Bill does not cover the legitimate acts of our Armed Forces and those supporting them in times of war. We believe that we can offer strong reassurance as to that.
First, as a general principle, we believe that it would be difficult to reach the conclusion that our Armed Forces, when acting in the course of their duties in an armed conflict, could be held to come within the definition of terrorism in the Bill. Taking it further, I repeat now the general principle in law that statutes do not bind the Crown unless by express provision or necessary implication. Of course, the Crown covers the military as well as others in the service of the Crown.
In this Bill, there is one minor and fairly technical exception in Clause 118, which has already been referred to. Apart from that, the offences in the Terrorism Bill will not apply to Crown servants and, therefore, would not affect our troops at a time of war. Those are my general comments on the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. While I can see that the Bill may not apply to Crown servants on the grounds that they are entitled to Crown exemption, it would potentially apply (would it not?) to members of the armed forces of France or the US.
Lord Bach: I shall now have to go back to part of the answer which I thought I could get away with not
242
giving because of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, not moving his Amendment No. 9. I shall return to that before I sit down.
I deal with the difficulties of the wording of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. First, as it stands, it would not just cover our Armed Forces but would also exempt from prosecution in courts in the United Kingdom any terrorist act committed in a state with which we were engaged in armed conflict. That would cut across our international obligations, particularly the Terrorist Bombing Convention, to submit for prosecution any alleged terrorists in the UK whom we do not extradite for prosecution elsewhere.
We believe that two other technical defects have been identified. We no longer speak of war but rather of armed conflict. That is a very minor point. Another is that the terms in which the amendment has been drafted means that it is not clear whether the act would have to be committed during the conflict or whether the exception could be back-dated to apply to an act committed before the conflict began.
I accept at once that those last two points are genuinely technical. The real point behind the noble Lord's amendment is understood. However, we believe that we have answered that by the Crown not being bound and also that it is difficult to conclude that our Armed Forces could, when acting in the course of their duties, be held to come within the definition of terrorism.
I deal now with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart; in other words, that allied forces might be liable under the Bill. The position there is really linked with that difficult issue of freedom fighter or terrorist.
Without going into the full arguments as far as that is concerned, that brings us up against potentially hard cases. Where significant proportions of the population have sympathy with the objectives pursued by, for example, our allies, we could not say, under the definition of terrorism in the Bill, that offences were not being committed. It may well be that offences are being committed.
We do not believe that the intention behind the acts, however worthy or understandable, would somehow make those unlawful acts lawful; how could they? But we recognise that in certain cases—this really would be our line—there are public interest considerations that should be borne in mind in considering whether prosecution should ever be started or continued.
Before the noble Lord comes in on that point, perhaps I may say that I am speaking more about organisations in foreign countries that commit acts which, while being terrorist acts by the standards of the Bill, are acts which may well have some support in this country, than I am, perhaps, about, for example, allied troops. However, the same might apply. There is a future debate to be had on who should decide on the prosecution; whether it should be the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General. I hope Members of the Committee will listen carefully when I say that we are considering that matter with care

243
before we reach the necessary amendments. We are considering it sympathetically in terms of it being the Attorney-General. I make no commitment, but that is an issue to which we will come in due course.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the Minister. I was about to raise that very point. I seem to recall the right honourable Douglas Hogg in another place focusing on the fact that many of the bombing acts of the ANC in the mid-1980s fall within this definition. We are dealing with a highly political public interest choice which has to be made.
May I take it, without any commitment on the part of the Government, that when we come to Amendment No. 176 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, which indicates that the Attorney-General is the right public officer to make that public interest decision rather than the Director of Public Prosecutions, that this might be a way forward, rather than tampering with definitions and trying to grasp an amoeba, which is difficult? This is not the sort of matter which one would normally leave to the Attorney-General to decide upon in the public interest.
Lord Bach: I shall not go into the interesting debate that no doubt we shall have on that amendment. I have said, and I stand by it, that we will look sympathetically at the terms of that amendment. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord for today.
In attempting to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I raise these matters because they are relevant. However, they are perhaps best covered by repeating what I said: it would be hard to conclude that our Armed Forces—perhaps it could even read "our allies' armed forces"—when acting in the course of their duties in an armed conflict, could be held to come within the definition of terrorism in the Bill. That is the other limb upon which it could be argued that the issue raised by the noble Lord may not be such an issue in practice as it is in theory.
However, I have gone off the track to answer the nobne Lord, Lord Goodhart. I believe my noble friend may have a searching question.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I am not sure that it is searching, and I IN as not sure of the moment to raise it. I wonder whether, in the view of my noble friend the Minister, there is an additional problem posed by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The amendment focuses on the place where the action is taken, whereas I believe what he had in mind was the question of against whom the action is directed. As it stands, the amendment, if passed, would prevent it being terrorism if people took action in a country with which we were at war but which was directed at our own citizens, for example. I suggest that that is not what the Act had in mind. That was the question I was thinking about asking when my noble friend the Minister suggested I should rise.
Lord Bach: I shall think about replying to it, and I shall put it to the noble Lord, Lord Cope. There is a
244
final word I should like to say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We do not think the definition covers any lawful action in armed conflict. It really is unlikely that a court would call the actions to which he referred terrorism; but it may be even at a stage before that. Then, obviously no prosecution would take place.
I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Cope, with my answer to his amendment. We do not think that the amendment is necessary. We do not think that there is any danger in the real world of our Armed Forces finding themselves liable under the Bill.
Lord Avebury: I am sure that the Committee will be relieved to hear that there is not any danger that members of the Armed Forces would be liable to prosecution under the provisions of the Bill.
The Minister reminded us that we no longer speak about being at war but about being in a conflict situation. In my mind that raises the question of what happens in the countries where we are engaged in either peacekeeping or peace supporting operations. A particular example that springs to mind at present is that of our forces in Sierra Leone. According to what the Minister told the Committee, nothing that our forces do in Sierra Leone could possibly be the subject of proceedings under the Bill.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Goodhart, he also stated that he thought the consent of the Attorney-General or whoever it may be, to a prosecution, would mean that acts committed by forces allied to the United Kingdom would also not be subject to prosecution under the Bill. Therefore, the Bangladeshis or the Indians, for instance, who are serving with the UNAMSIL forces in Sierra Leone would be able to engage in armed acts against the rebel RUF without there being any threat of prosecution.
In my mind that raises the possibility of the extension of the United Kingdom's jurisdiction to acts committed by the terrorist organisations. Are we saying that if, for instance, Mr Foday Sankoh, the leader of the RUF, set foot in the United Kingdom we could bring proceedings against him under the Bill, or that any armed opposition to a government, whether in Sierra Leone or any other part of the world, which is committing acts specified in Clause I would render itself liable to jurisdiction in this country?
If that is what we are saying, the Bill represents a large extension of our extra-territorial jurisdiction. The Attorney-General recently reaffirmed to me that that was not the intention of the Government. He said that we still maintain that any extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction would have to be justified on the same criteria as were contained in the assessment by the Home Office of extra-territorial jurisdiction which was produced, I believe, in the summer before this Government came into office. They relied on that when I introduced a Bill in this House to extend our jurisdiction to acts committed under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which at the time the Government opposed.

245
In a recent answer to me in a letter, the Attorney-General stated that it was now the intention of the Government, when they come to legislate on the international communal courts statute to take powers to criminalise Article 3 acts. I welcome that and I am very pleased that they have come round to my point of view.
However, here we are under this Bill embarking on an enormous extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction and there has been no discussion at all, as far as I am aware, on the principle of the matter. They have departed from the policy of both this Government hitherto and their predecessors in office. I think that requires an examination by your Lordships at this stage. This will be the only opportunity that we have of doing so.
Lord Bach: I do not want disappoint the noble Lord, but I have really little to say about this. The definition of terrorism in Clause 1 of course does not create an offence in itself. The Bill creates offences further on, and we will come to those in due course. At the moment I certainly do not want to talk about the situation in Sierra Leone: that is not what I am briefed to do and I think it would be unfortunate if I were to do so. Obviously any person, whoever it may be, has to commit an offence under this Bill to be caught.
The Bill has tidied up the previous position under the two Acts, so that the definition of terrorism applies to acts that take place anywhere in the world. However, it is of course vital that if we are to prosecute anyone it would have to be in regard to offences created by this Bill. I will leave the point there.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Not for the first time, I am glad that I did not make exaggerated claims for the drafting of this particular amendment, Amendment No. 10, particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, had to say a few moments ago. I think that the noble Lord the Minister has got out of the "armed forces" difficulty. He has explained the solution to that. However, I am less clear about the position of other civilians who might be involved. I am not sure whether their position is as clear.
He referred a moment ago to the definition having been "tidied up" by its extension to anywhere in the world. If I may say so, I think that it is rather more than a mere "tidying up", but I do not think I need to pursue that at this moment. It is clear that we shall return later to this general point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Temporary legislation]:
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not sure whether I am the only Member of the Committee who finds the drafting of this particular Bill incredibly difficult. On the face of it, Clause 2 says that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern
246
Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 shall cease to have effect. That is backed up by, I think, Schedule 16 much later in the Bill. Then one goes on to read about Schedule 1, which the Committee is just about to study, which concerns the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act: that is a partial continuance schedule. One can readily understand that. It flows, as it were, in a logical sequence.
However, one discovers on further reading of the Bill that the 1989 Act itself is not abandoned at all. For example, it creeps into Clause 128, and some of the definitions and procedures in that temporary provisions Act appear in other clauses in this Bill. Would not this Bill, when passed into law, have been far simpler and easier to read by lawyers and others had the appropriate parts of Clause 128 been made into a schedule, to go between Schedules 1 and 2?
I may have been a little indulgent in speaking about this now but, with a bit of luck, the answers I hope to be given will mean that I need not move my amendments to Clause 11, and that will save time.
Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, because I think this is more than just a drafting point. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which I mentioned earlier, has stated its belief that there is no need for this provision—that is Clause 2—given the powers contained in Part VII of this Bill. It goes on to say that it believes the EPA should be repealed and not replaced. I hope the Government will give that some serious thought.
Lord Bach: Let me say first of all what Clause 2 intends to do. It has two purposes. First, it repeals the PTA and the EPA, whose provisions are due to be replaced by this Bill. Secondly, it gives effect to Schedule 1, which we shall come on to in a moment, to continue in force the EPA, with some amendments, until the provisions of the Bill are brought into force: in other words, they are transitional essentials. This is an essential transitional proposal for Northern Ireland.
The current EPA would expire on the 24th August this year. Unless it is continued by Clause 2 there will be a gap between those provisions expiring and the coming into force of the Terrorism Bill. It is not practical to assume that the Bill's provisions could be commenced at Royal Assent, given, for example, the need for the police to familiarise themselves with the new powers and procedures. As I say, the two Acts are repealed by Clause 2, but these transitional provisions are needed and they are set out in the clause to which the noble Lord refers, Clause 128. For example, they are needed where prosecution is begun under the PTA before the Act comes into force.
Lord Skelmersdale: Will the noble Lord give way? I am grateful to him. I was not complaining about the need, but about the way it has been done. In Clause 2 there is a cross-reference, quite rightly, to Schedule 1,

247
but again there is no cross-reference, for example, to Clause 128, and the whole thing seems to me to be totally illogical.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has a great deal of experience. We will look at that and come back on it, if we may.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 61, line 30, leave out ("the passing of this Act") and insert ("14th June 2000").
The noble Lord said: I should like to make it clear to the Committee that I did not intend to move this amendment and, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to explain why. This technical amendment was tabled to ensure that paragraph 1(1) of Schedule I achieved its aim of keeping alive the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act during the transitional period between Royal Assent and the Bill's coming into force. It is very much a safeguard amendment which would be required only if the Bill received Royal Assent before 15th June, the date on which the current emergency provisions Act falls due for renewal. I am now conscious that I have given two quite separate dates for the date on which that Act has to be renewed. I will ensure that the Committee knows the right date before I sit down.
As your Lordships will realise, we have only just begun in this Committee to consider these very important provisions. While it would be wonderful to think that this Bill will become law by 15th June, we are realistic enough to realise that is not a very likely option. This amendment is therefore unnecessary and I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships with it. However, I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. Once an amendment has been spoken to in so many words, it really must be moved to allow a speaker to get in, should he or she want to, and question the Minister; otherwise the opportunity disappears for all time—or, if not for all time, at least until the next stage of the Bill—which is a pity.
The Minister went into all sorts of contortions explaining why he was not going to move the amendment, but the explanation seemed to me to revolve around it not being a feasible option to have the Bill on the statute book by 14th June or whatever the right date is or will be.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bach: The renewal is due on 15th June. The expiry date will be 24th August.
Lord Skelmersdale: At least we have our dates sorted out. Nonetheless, the Minister's reason for saying he did not intend moving the amendment appeared to be the reason for tabling the amendment. So I was totally lost in his argument. I am all for having a date and I am all for having the right date, but it may be that the
248
real reason is that in this amendment the date is wrong. Be that as it may, it would leave things to an enormous amount of chance to leave the words,
"the passing of this Act",
where they are in the Bill. There must be a date of some sort.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that the Minister correctly explained to the Committee that there must not be a gap between the work we are now doing and the date when the new Act comes into force in relation to pending criminal proceedings? What is commendable about the Government's approach is that they are seeking to achieve certainty, but not in the way that one would do if this matter were not complicated, because it is complicated and one is trying to move from temporary to permanent legislation. Therefore, though I may not have drafted the whole of this Bill precisely in the way it has been drafted, the Minister's answer reassures us that there will not be a gap and that we will have complete certainty. In those circumstances we should not cavil about this.
Lord Skelmersdale: Cavilling or not, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for what he said in that short intervention. I agree that it is important that there should be no gap. I hope that the words in the Bill as unamended will ensure that; but I shall have to look carefully at what the Minister said because, from what I believe he said, I doubt that they will.
Lord Bach: The Government's view is that they will ensure exactly that. The noble Lord need not he too worried about this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 62, line 38, after ("Lord Chancellor") insert ("by statutory instrument").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to make clear that the Lord Chancellor's rules, referred to at paragraph 9(7)(a) of Schedule 1 are made by statutory instrument. The rules in question are made under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and relate to the National Security Certificate Tribunal established under that Act. The Terrorism Bill brings within the remit of that tribunal appeals against national security certificates issued in appeals to the High Court against a refusal by the Secretary of State to grant a certificate to a person wishing to provide private security services in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Proscription]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 16, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises from a recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, to whose recommendations this House always pays close attention.
In paragraph 15 of the committee's 12th report, which was its main report on this Bill among other matters, the committee draws attention to this matter and says that the House may wish to seek justification from the Minister for this "unusual" power. It is to seek further justification that I tabled this amendment.
On the face of it, it is a wide power to permit the Secretary of State to amend Schedule 2 "in some other way". That is expressed extremely widely. It is an Henry VIII power; that is, a power of secondary legislation to amend primary legislation, subject to the affirmative procedure. That is perfectly correct, and the Select Committee thought it correct also. Nevertheless, I feel that we should seek further justification for the use of this power. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for flushing us out on this matter and I shall happily give an explanation.
Clause 3 provides the Secretary of State's power to proscribe and deproscribe organisations. As such, it is fundamental to the operation of Part II of the Bill. Amendment No. 15 cannot be accepted because the power which it would delete is necessary to the proper working of the proscription regime.
Proscribing and deproscribing organisations is normally done by adding organisations to or taking them away from Schedule 2. However, it is also necessary for the Secretary of State to be able to amend the schedule in some other way. The reason is that he may need to add, remove or amend a note such as is referred to in subsection (2) of Clause 3.
The use of notes in Schedule 2 is a drafting innovation, but is intended to achieve the same effect as the current legislation. In the Northern Ireland (Emergency Powers) Act 1996, the corresponding schedule includes an entry for,
"the organisation using the name 'The Orange Volunteers' and being the organisation in whose name a statement described as a press release was published on 14th October 1998".
While the intention of that entry is clear enough, we felt that there was a risk of confusion and even some contradiction between it and the general principle now in Clause 3(1)(b); that is, if an organisation is proscribed, so are all other organisations operating under the same name. The approach taken by the Bill is therefore to explain the particular case of the Orange Volunteers by means of a note to Schedule 2 and, in Clause 3(2), to disapply the general principle in this particular case.
That is why it is important that the Secretary of State can not only add to and subtract from the schedule, but can also amend it in other ways. We do not expect that there will be much need to use the power in Clause 3(3)(c) since, as I have just said, it has its origin in what is very much a one-off case.
250
Nevertheless, since the precedent has now been set, we see the Clause 3(3)(c) power as an essential part of the package. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment on this point.
Lord Goodhart: As a member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, we rather suspected that that might be the answer to why this provision was included in the Bill. The purposes for which it is proposed seem to be acceptable and it is not likely that the committee need have any further concern with this matter. But I am glad that that has been placed on the record.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In view of the explanation given by the Minister and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert—
("(4A) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(b) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is not currently concerned in terrorism.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17, which is a covering drafting amendment should Amendment No. 16 be accepted. This is quite a simple amendment, but the world of terrorism is complex and will become far more complicated. All sorts of political issues will come into the equation and it seems to us that the terms of this amendment cover the situation; that is to say, that the Secretary of State may remove an organisation from the proscribed list under such conditions.
If we do not have a condition that is clear cut and easily recognisable against that power, it would, perhaps, leave the matter a little open—a little naked—bearing in mind things that have happened in Northern Ireland at different times when negotiating with terrorists. Moreover, as we discussed earlier, this Bill can cover terrorism elsewhere in the world to some extent. Indeed, we could be dealing with international terrorist groups. Before an organisation is taken off the proscribed list, it seems to us that the Secretary of State and the government of the day should take some considerable trouble to ensure that, both nationally and internationally, the said organisation is well and truly out, if I may put it that way, of the terrorist game. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: This is, perhaps, a convenient opportunity for me to raise a point that worries me a little; namely, that in the Explanatory Notes we are told that the Government are considering which organisations involved in international terrorism might be added to the schedule. However, as far as I know, the Government have given no indication as to which organisations they have in mind. For example, will they include all the organisations that are listed in the US State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism,> the 1999 edition of which was published last

251
month? Alternatively, if we do not take a ready-made list like the one to which I just referred, can the Minister give any indication of what principles will be applied?
Many organisations operate in the United Kingdom which some people may say are front organisations for terrorists. Perhaps I may give the Committee one example. Many people have complained about the activities of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which operates under a pseudonym. Indeed, the High Commissioner for Sri Lanka has frequently complained about this organisation. He says that the British Government tolerate the activities of the LTTE in the UK and that they allow it to maintain offices, raise funds, and so on. Can the Minister say whether the I,TTE is one of the organisations that the Government are considering banning? It is named in the US State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism, so we are not breaking any great secrets if we discuss the matter openly on the Floor of the Committee.
The Government cannot simply take the power to proscribe any organisation that comes into their mind; they must have some idea of what constitutes an organisation engaged in international terrorism and of what action they are likely to take against it if it has offices within the United Kingdom. We are talking about very extensive powers, and I believe that most Members of the Committee would agree that they are justifiable. But, before we leave this clause, I should be grateful if the Minister could give further information about how such powers will be used.
Lord Monson: This is not only a worthwhile amendment but also a very necessary one. Surely it would be quite wrong for any governrnent to cave in to organisations currently concerned in terrorism. Of course, the drafting of the amendment may not be 100 per cent perfect; I do not know. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will at least accept the principle behind the amendment. It will be rather alarming if they do not.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: These amendments are very similar in effect to those moved in another place by Mr David Lidington on 20th January, so this debate has, so to speak, already taken place. As I understand it, the amendments seek to place a similar restriction on the circumstances in which the proscribed organisation appeals commission could recommend de-proscription.
I take most seriously the points made by all Members of the Committee on this issue. Clearly, we must think very carefully about such matters. We rejected the amendment moved by Mr Lidington, which would have provided that the Secretary of State "may exercise his power under subsection (3)(b) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it has ceased to be concerned in terrorism." I shall give the reasons.
252
Under the Bill, proscription will be available for the first time for organisations concerned in international terrorism. I am reluctant to be drawn into listing and relying upon a US list relating to terrorism. We are carefully considering such matters. I am, of course, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for drawing our attention to the 1999 US State Department listing, but, as I said, we wish to consider these matters most carefully.
It has to be said that it would be excessive to proscribe every organisation in the world that is concerned with terrorism. However, I can give the noble Lord sonic idea of the factors that will be taken into account, which are fairly obvious. First, we would have to consider carefully the nature and scale of the group's activities; secondly, we would have to look al the specific threat that it posed to the United Kingdom and our citizens abroad, which is clearly a very important consideration, as well as the extent of its presence in this country. Indeed, the noble Lord drew our attention to one group which may, or may not, fall into that category. Thirdly, we would also have to consider our responsibility to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. That has to be very important.
I am sure that those with long experience of such matters, like the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Cope of Berkeley, will recognise the role that we have to play within the wider international community in this respect. In that context, it is conceivable—and I stress only "conceivable"—that an organisation might cease to be a candidate for proscription in the UK without actually ceasing to be concerned in terrorism. It is conceivable, but we must leave it at that point.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Cope, and others differ from those put forward by Mr Lidington in that their amendments require the Secretary of State to believe that the organisation is not currently concerned in terrorism. Therefore, under these amendments, the Secretary of State could de-proscribe an organisation which might not have entirely ceased to be concerned in terrorism—but only so long as he believed that the organisation was,
"not currently concerned in terrorism".
The arguments that we advanced in another place still apply to this version of the amendment. The Government believe that the hands of the Secretary of State should not be tied. As I stressed earlier, that is particularly important given our commitments in the field of tackling international terrorism where it is conceivable that, on balance, the Secretary of State might wish to de-proscribe an organisation which is concerned in terrorism.
As we have said, the Secretary of State will take his responsibilities very seriously. But it is right to ensure that the Secretary of State can weigh up all the relevant factors without being constrained in the manner contemplated by these amendments. With that

253
explanation and the reassurance that we shall pay very close attention to these matters, I trust that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation. Despite the international world of terrorism that exists, I, too, was somewhat surprised to find that the only organisations on the proscribed list were Irish. In fact, I attempted to put together an amendment that would include some other organisations that might well be put on the proscribed list. I pursued my inquiries through routes that I have trodden before in a different life. However, the people concerned were rather loath to let me have a list of suggested terrorist organisations that might be included on that proscribed list to be used in this context; but there is a list. I am sure that the Minister has access to whatever professional expertise that he needs in that field. Our intelligence forces have considerable expertise. I accept that any government with access to such expertise should be able, with that advice, to make a decision to remove, or not to remove, an organisation from the list. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Deproscription: application]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 32, after ("regulations") insert (", after consulting the Advocate General,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 18 I wish to speak also to the amendments with which it is grouped. They all concern the question of Scottish law and their purpose is to ensure that when decisions are taken by the Secretary of State, in the case of Amendments Nos. 18 and 177, and by the Lord Chancellor, in the case of Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30, account is taken of the differences between Scottish law and English law.
As regards Amendments Nos. 18 and 177, I suppose that I could have included the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in the consultations to ensure that the Secretary of State took account of English law as well as Scottish law. Fortunately, the noble and learned Lord is not present to be offended at that omission. In any case, I believe that, as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, his relationship with the Secretary of State is close enough to ensure that his view is taken into account.
However, I am less sure that the differences with regard to Scottish law will be adequately taken into account. As regards Amendments Nos. 27 to 30, consultation between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session is important. Scottish law and its rules and practices vary from those of English law. It is important that we do not appear to determine through the Lord Chancellor for England matters that concern Scotland, given that the
254
Government have done their best to devolve matters to Scotland, and given that Scottish law has always been different from English law in important respects. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: These amendments would build in statutory requirements for the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor to consult with certain Scottish office-bearers before exercising powers under the Bill. As the noble Lord knows, terrorist matters are reserved matters. However, he is correct to say that the Scottish dimension will always be important. It is obviously the intention of noble Lords to ensure that that dimension is properly reflected in the exercise of these powers. The Government are aware that the Law Society of Scotland has proposed that the Bill be amended along these lines.
Strictly speaking, all these amendments are unnecessary. The Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor will, in any event, take account of any distinctive Scottish dimensions in exercising these powers. The positions of the two Scottish offices in question are, however, slightly different. The Advocate General for Scotland is a United Kingdom Government law officer. She is the legal adviser to the Cabinet on Scottish law—the equivalent of the Attorney-General as regards other matters. As such, any Secretary of State would consult her and, no doubt, the Attorney-General, as a matter of course on the making of regulations such as those in Clauses 4 and 118. This procedure is internal to the Government and we see no need whatsoever to spell it out on the face of the legislation. There is also a technical deficiency with Amendments Nos. 18 and 177 in that the reference should be to the "Advocate General for Scotland".
The case of the Lord President of the Court of Session is slightly different. He is the most senior judge in Scotland, and so he is not, of course, part of the Government. The Lord Chancellor would normally consult him on matters of the kind set out in Schedule 3. But we are prepared to consider further whether there would be any advantage in requiring this on the face of the Bill.
We wish to take away Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 and consider them further. We hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing Amendments Nos. 18 and 177 on the basis of the arguments that I have deployed.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am encouraged by the Government's response to Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 and by their explanation of the other amendments in the group. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert—
("(c) require the Secretary of State to publicise the application, and
(d) provide for representations by other interested parties to be made in favour of, or against. the application within a reasonable time.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 4 concerns an application to the Secretary of State for an organisation to be removed from the list of proscribed organisations. An organisation itself, or any person affected by its proscription, can apply for it to be removed from the list if it has renounced terrorism. Amendment No. 19 asserts that the application should be considered in the light not only of representations from the proscribed organisation itself but also from anyone else who wishes to comment on it. Therefore, it seems to me that the Secretary of State ought to publicise the fact that he has received an application to remove an organisation from the list and provide for representations to be made—within an appropriate timescale—by other people who are either in favour of, or against, the application.
Although the Secretary of State is usually extremely well informed in these matters, he may not necessarily know everything. Furthermore, those who have suffered as a result of the activities of a proscribed organisation might he deeply offended to discover that that organisation is struck off the list without their even knowing that an application had been made to do so. I therefore believe that the amendment should be carefully considered in the interests of the proper treatment of those who have suffered at the hands of these proscribed organisations—some of which, as we know, have committed the most dastardly crimes. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: A little later we shall consider possible rights of appeal against the proscription, as distinct from the deproscription, of political organisations. However, this seems to me to be the right point at which to raise a particular matter with the Minister. I do not expect him to respond to it this evening.
As I understand it, the Government committed themselves— I commend them on this—as regards statements of compatibility under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, to the proposition that the Minister in charge of the Bill will explain in the course of debates on the Bill the reasons for his views on the compatibility of the Bill.
In relation to proscribing and deproscribing terrorist organisations, the matter that concerns me is the way in which the appeal rights are so circumscribed. The curious abridgement of the rights of appeal is the other side of the coin to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. How can this be compatible with the right to a fair trial and the determination of one's civil rights and obligations under Article 6, and perhaps under Article 14, of the European Convention on Human Rights?
If one looks at Clause 5(3), the right of appeal is to be,
"in the light of the principles applicable on an application for judicial review".
That is fine. I take it that when the Human Rights Act comes into force that will include an application for judicial review using the convention rights that are to he directly effective in our courts.
256
But when one comes to Schedule 3, which deals with the procedure for appeals, one notes that, under paragraph 5,
"The Lord Chancellor may make rules…regulating the exercise of the right of appeal to the Commission"
including making provision about the burden of proof and the admissibility of evidence.
Then, under paragraph 5(4)(a),
"provide for full particulars of the reasons for proscription or refusal to deproscribe to be withheld from the organisation or applicant concerned and from any person representing it or him".
I do not understand how there can be a fair hearing of the issue of whether to proscribe or deproscribe if the victim—this is the victim on the wrong side of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope—cannot know the reasons.
As I said, it is a detailed and important question. I would rather that the Minister had the opportunity to consider the answer and, perhaps at Report stage, explain the reasons for considering the Bill to be compatible in respect of the right to a fair hearing. I particularly have in mind not only Article 6, but the right to freedom of association under Article 11 of the convention.
One does not start with huge sympathy for these organisations, but, nevertheless, it is often the most unpopular people whose procedural and fairness rights we need to be vigilant about, even if they would be contemptuous of our rights. It is for that reason that I raise the issue now.
8 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I may deal first with the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has raised this matter. I do not promise to give him a full response today—he is desirous that I do so perhaps at Report stage—but, having followed through his logic, it is obvious that he has raised a fair point.
We will of course write to the noble Lord but the important issue in this whole exercise—as I think he understands from some of his concluding comments about not having great sympathy for the organisations concerned—is to design a system which can protect sensitive intelligence. I suspect that that is part of the thinking behind the way in which the current schedule is drafted. However, I undertake to fully explore the issue that the noble Lord has quite properly raised.
Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I recognise that the intention of these amendments is, as he plainly said, to open up the deproscription application and appeal processes to others who may claim an interest—in short, to make this a more public process. But there are limits to how public this can properly be. The Secretary of State's decisions will often take account of sensitive intelligence matters, to which I have referred, that cannot be published. I am sure that Members of the Committee will understand that. The Secretary of State must weigh all the available information and decide where, overall, the national interest lies. We

257
believe that the processes are already as open as they can be and that it would be wrong to amend the Bill in the manner proposed.
Let me deal first with the proposal that third-party representations should be able to be made for or against proscription at both the application and appeal stages. In short, we believe this to be unnecessary.
So far as concerns representations against proscription, any person who is affected by the organisation's proscription can, in any case, apply for deproscription in his own right under Clause 4(2)(b). Organisations will doubtless seek to put together the best case that they can and to draw together such support as they can muster, both at the application and appeal stages.
On the other hand, there may be third parties who feel strongly that the organisation should remain proscribed for some of the reasons referred to by the noble Lord. There is of course nothing to stop them making their views known, whether publicly or privately, to the Secretary of State. He will have already a very clear sense of the strength of feeling that the victims of a terrorist organisation, or their families and those close to them, may well have in support of continuing proscription.
The Secretary of State will make his decision on the basis of all relevant information—but the decision cannot be reached through a process of public debate, with all the relevant material available to all concerned. For those reasons we think it would be wrong to formalise a system which might suggest otherwise. We do not agree that there should be a statutory right for third parties to be heard.
With that in mind, perhaps I may now deal with the proposal that the Secretary of State should publicise applications. This would, of course, provide a trigger for third party representations. We do not see it as appropriate for the Secretary of State to be required to publicise applications in any case. If an organisation or affected person wants to make their application known, they will doubtless be able to do so. We believe that it should be for the applicant to do this. There may well be particular sensitivities in the case of some individuals.
In many instances an organisation will publicise its application anyway. It will be representing itself as a legitimate group and might well try to seek support from the press, from the public and from others to that end. But, as I said, this is not a matter that can be settled by public debate. There therefore seems little advantage in seeking to prompt such debate.
We are persuaded neither of the benefit of a statutory right for third parties to make representations at either stage, nor of the need for applications to be publicised. I therefore hope that, having heard the points that I have made, which focus very much on the hard facts of the issue, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My amendment does not seek an open process. There is nothing in the
258
amendment to suggest that the application or the representations about it should be heard in public or argued out in a public forum such as a court of law. Of course I understand the point about intelligence information—the Secretary of State will make his decision very largely on information that he may not wish to disclose—but that is not what I am looking for. All that I seek is for those who may be victims of a particular organisation, or otherwise affected by it, to be in a position to make representations about why it should not be deproscribed. Amendment No. 21 makes a similar point.
The Minister said that there is nothing to stop them from making representations. I agree—there is nothing to stop them provided that the application has been made—but the application can be made secretly and, unless this amendment or one similar to it is agreed to, the Secretary of State has no obligation to publicise it. They are not going to make representations on the off-chance that there may have been an application to deproscribe.
The Minister does not seem to have answered the point. None the less, I do not propose to pursue the matter at this juncture and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Deproscription: appeal]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Where an order has been made under section 3, the organisation may appeal to the Commission.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 20 and the other amendments in this group concern the provisions in Clauses 3 to 10 of the Bill about proscription matters. What we have under this very curious procedure is sentence first and trial second. What happens is that the Home Secretary makes a proscription order. That order comes into effect immediately with all its consequences. Membership of the proscribed organisation becomes an offence. Arranging a meeting to be addressed by a member of the organisation becomes an offence. That is obviously interference, as my noble friend Lord Lester pointed out, with rights of association and rights of freedom of speech of the members of the organisation. Those rights are not unrestricted. There have been and will be cases where these draconian steps are justified. Surely that should normally happen only after some kind of hearing has taken place.
What happens here is a most peculiar procedure. The proscribed organisation cannot appeal against a proscription order. What it can do is to apply under Clause 4, which it can do immediately, to be de-proscribed. If that application is refused, it can go to a hearing before the proscribed organisation appeal commission. That is a somewhat misnamed commission because the commission does not hear what is, in the ordinary sense of the word, an appeal; it judicially reviews the Home Secretary's decision, and that in itself is not a satisfactory arrangement.
The question then arises as to what happens if someone has been convicted of, let us say, membership of the organisation in the interval between the original proscription order being made and the date when the commission allows the appeal against refusal of the de-proscription order. This again is most peculiar. Under Clause 7, it all depends on whether the act which gives rise to the conviction occurred before or after the refusal by the Home Secretary to make a deproscription order If the offence is committed after the Home Secretary's refusal, the defendant can appeal to the Court of Appeal and, by statutory provision, the like of which I have never come across before, the Court of Appeal is legally bound to allow that appeal. On the other hand, if the offence is committed before the Home Secretary has refused to make the de-proscription order, the conviction stands even if the ground on which the commission allows the appeal is that there is no evidence which would have justified the Home Secretary refusing the de-proscription order.
This whole procedure is unnecessarily elaborate. First, why not simply allow an appeal from the proscription order? That is the purpose of Amendment No. 20 and Nos. 22 to 24. Secondly, while such an appeal is pending, the consequences of proscription should not, we believe, in general apply and that is the purpose of Amendment No. 31. The appeal to the proscribed organisation appeal commission is the only form of judicial proceeding involved in the proscription process and, while the appeal is pending, we believe that there should be no liability to prosecution under Clauses 11 to 13 or to the other consequences of becoming a proscribed organisation.
We make one proposed exception to that on obvious grounds of common sense. The cash of a proscribed organisation is liable to seizure and detention under Clauses 25 to 27. If those clauses do not come into effect until an appeal is dismissed, it is obvious that the cash would have disappeared in the interim. It therefore seems reasonable to make an exception for the seizure and detention of cash. There could of course be no order for forfeiture under Clause 28 until the appeal is dismissed and, if the appeal is allowed, the cash would of course be returned.
We are seriously concerned about the fairness and justice of this exceptional procedure. We think it should be both simplified and also altered to ensure that the consequences of proscription do not come into effect until such time as a judicial body has had a chance to look at the matter. There may be cases in which more immediate interim action should be taken on matters other than cash but, if so, I suggest that the Government should come back with amendments which will target those particular occasions and not have a general rule which makes proscription orders come into effect immediately, whether or not there is in fact any good reason why they should do so. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My name is also attached to this amendment, but I shall not repeat anything said
260
by my noble friend. However, I should like to make one or two further points on which I hope the Minister and his advisers will reflect.
First, there is no doubt that, by proscribing an organisation, action is being taken that interferes with a human right, the human right to freedom of association and the associated right to freedom of speech.
Secondly, that interference can be made only if it is prescribed by law and is necessary in a democratic society. The Human Rights Act would ensure that this Bill must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with those rights if it possibly can. However, it is much better if we can write into the Bill provisions that ensure it rather than leaving it to judges in mitigation to put the matter right.
Thirdly, if there are no criteria spelled out in the Bill as to the circumstances in which the proscribed act will take place, that will lack legal certainty because people will have to guess and will not know what the circumstances are in which an organisation will he proscribed.
Fourthly, proscription must be only where necessary for a pressing social need, the burden of proof being upon the Government rather than the organisation to establish that under the convention. The last point is that these convention rights—freedom of association and speech— must be determined not only in a manner prescribed by law but must involve a fair hearing.
The Minister has already referred to the need to withhold sensitive intelligence information from the organisations and their perpetrators. I accept that. However, this is not a new problem for the Government or Parliament. It has arisen twice before. The first example was the case of Chahal v. United Kingdom where, in relation to suspected terrorists who were being extradited to India, the "three wise men" procedure was held by the Strasbourg Court to be wanting, partly because English courts could not effectively review the merits of the decisions. That led the Government, very wisely, to introduce a special procedure with a special form of judicial protection with a court-appointed lawyer who did not have to represent the alleged terrorists but who was provided with the basic information so that the Government's case could be tested.
The second example was the case of Tinnelly v. United Kingdom, which involved a very sensitive terrorist problem where national security considerations had to be weighed against granting contracts in Northern Ireland to people suspected of being associated with the IRA or with terrorism. Again, the Government have, very wisely and sensibly, introduced a special procedure to accommodate Article 6 of the convention.
Article 6 is not absolute. The right to a fair hearing is not absolute. It may be qualified by necessary and proportionate limitations. I accept that. But given that paragraph 7(4) of Schedule 3 provides for a specially appointed lawyer to be able to represent the interests of the organisation without being responsible to it, I

261
see no good reason why a court-appointed lawyer, as it were, cannot be provided with the basic information so there can be a fair hearing without any disclosure to the proscribed organisation or the perpetrators. These are serious issues.
If, on reflection, the Minister is against me on all these points and stands by the position that a truncated appeal procedure is compatible with the convention, I ask him this question. If it is to be so circumscribed, why on earth cannot that circumscribed procedure apply to the proscribing of the organisation rather than in the convoluted way set out under the Bill? I am not advocating such a circumscribed procedure, but if it is to be so circumscribed, I cannot think of any compelling public interest reason why Amendment No. 20 is not a sensible approach.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I may deal, first, with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I listened with great care to what he had to say. I shall read Hansard very carefully as a consequence. I fully respect and understand the points he makes, certainly in relation to human rights and the operation of this appeal mechanism. We must have careful regard to all of those issues. We may well want to reflect on them some more.
As I understand the amendments, they introduce in effect a new right of appeal additional to what we consider to be the valuable appeal arrangements already proposed in the Bill. Our argument is that this addition is unnecessary. I shall explain the procedure as we have designed it. Under the Bill, as is the case under the existing legislation, the Secretary of State may proscribe organisations which are concerned in terrorism. Once Parliament has given its approval, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, the proscription regime takes effect. That regime includes not only the membership offences in Clauses 11 to 13 and the cash at borders powers in Clauses 24 to 31 but also the terrorist property provision in Clauses 14 to 23 and with them the arrangements for restraint and forfeiture orders in Schedule 4.
If a person thinks that an organisation is wrongly proscribed, the first step is to apply, as is understood, for deproscription. He may be able to present new information that was not available when the initial decision was taken, or he may have information which shows that an organisation which was at one time concerned in terrorism and was properly proscribed is no longer concerned in terrorism and should consequently be deproscribed. The Secretary of State will then look again at the case and may decide on deproscription at that stage. If, however, the Secretary of State refuses to deproscribe, the person can appeal against that decision to the proscribed organisations appeal commission. If the commission determines in his favour, it can make an order and the effect of the order is that the Secretary of State must lay a deproscription order or deproscribe using the urgency procedure. If it is deproscribed following such an order, not only do the offences cease to take effect but
262
also convictions can be overturned by virtue of Clause 7. Seized cash can be returned by virtue of Clause 29 and compensation made in respect of restraint and forfeiture orders may be sought. Paragraphs 10, 24 and 40 of Schedule 4 permit that.
We have always recognised that proscription is a very heavy-handed power. We believe that this procedure provides an important safeguard against its misuse by the Secretary of State. However, we also believe that the additional procedure proposed by the noble Lord's amendments would go beyond the needs of a safeguard and would be detrimental to the effective operation of the proscription regime itself.
Perhaps I may explain why we think the organisation must first apply for deproscription rather than being able to go straight to the proscribed organisations appeal commission to appeal the initial decision to proscribe. First, there is the genuine possibility that the Secretary of State may agree to deproscribe the organisation. That would avoid the need for what could be a lengthy and costly hearing before the proscribed organisations appeal commission. So it cuts out that unnecessary layer. Moreover, where an organisation has been proscribed for some time, an appeal against the decision to proscribe will not produce the right result. It could be that the initial decision to proscribe was lawful when it was made but that the situation had subsequently changed, either because the organisation had ceased to be concerned in terrorism or because the balance of factors to be taken into account in determining proscription—
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Presumably, there would be a time limit within which an appeal could be made against the original proscription order. In that case it is very unlikely that in that relatively short interval, which might well be 14 or 28 days at the most, the nature of the organisation would have changed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That might be the case, yes. I accept the point. However, we believe that it is right to begin the process in every case with an application to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be required to determine applications within a time specified in regulations. Under the current draft, the proposal is that that would be 90 days. Where he refuses, the case will have to reach the commission before very long.
Perhaps I may explain why it is our policy that the organisation should remain proscribed until the final disposal or determination. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, drew attention to this point and described it, as he did earlier, as conviction first and trial afterwards. That is not the right analogy. Proscribing an organisation is not like convicting a person. It is a powerful deterrent, not an offence in itself. That is an essential part of the consideration. The noble Lord suggests that the proscription order should not take effect until the end of the appeal process. The Government do not believe that that would work. Most obviously, under the noble Lord's

263
proposal it would be in every organisation's interest to lodge an immediate application, and if that was refused, an immediate appeal, and to ensure that the proceedings lasted as long as possible. As the main proscription-related offences would not apply during that period, the organisation would be able to go on recruiting new members and generating support despite the fact that Parliament had endorsed the Secretary of State's view that it was concerned with terrorism. Under the present system, by contrast, it is in everyone's interest for the appeal procedure to work smoothly.
A further objection to the amendment is that, as I indicated at Second Reading, the noble Lord wishes to preserve the powers to freeze the resources of proscribed organisations. The new clause will not achieve that because subsection (2) applies only to cash at borders. In fact, the most powerful freezing provisions are the restraint orders in Schedule 4, which are inextricably bound up with the terrorist property offences in Clauses 15 to 18. Even if the proposal were redrafted to take that into account, I do not see the logic of the Government saying "You can go on being members of the organisation until the end of the appeal process, but we will freeze your assets now just in case we win". We believe that the only tenable position is that set out in the Bill whereby an organisation is either proscribed or it is not.
I recognise all of the sensitivities that have been raised by the noble Lord in moving the amendment. However, when one looks at the practicalities of the situation, I think that the amendments require further thought. I suggest that the noble Lord withdraws the amendment.
Lord Avebury: As the Minister described the procedure, the Secretary of State may proscribe the organisation and once Parliament gives its approval that proscription comes into effect. He is of course right in so far as concerns Clause 122(3), which provides that any order made under Clause 3 is subject to affirmative resolution by Parliament. There will then be a breathing space during which the organisation will know that proscription is coming and would be able to take precautions so as not to commit any of the offences outlined in Clauses 14 to 23, in particular those related to soliciting money or disposing of property.
However, perhaps I may also draw the Committee's attention to Clause 122(4). That allows the Secretary of State not to go through the affirmative resolution procedure but to declare that the matter is one of urgency so that proscription can come into effect immediately. That means that the Secretary of State could declare the matter urgent, proscribe an organisation at 10 o'clock in the morning and, from that point onwards, the members would be committing the offences specified in the Bill, even though they would not know that such an order had been made. There is no requirement on the Secretary of State, if he declares that the matter is urgent, to notify the organisation that it has been proscribed.
264
I do not think that the Committee will agree that someone who has no way of knowing that a proscription order had been made could be committing an offence under one of the provisions in Clauses 14 to 23. Surely this cannot be the intention of the Government?
I believe that the Minister should think again about this part of the provisions. If the suggestion of my noble friend were to be accepted, then the organisation would have a right of appeal against a proscription order whether it was made by affirmative resolution or by the urgency procedures laid down in Clause 122(4). The difficulty would then be removed. I think that the Minister will somehow have to satisfy the Committee that people will not be put into the position of committing offences of which they could not have had any knowledge.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I suggest that it would be rather difficult for a terrorist not to know that he was a terrorist.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may reply to that comment. The point is not whether he is a terrorist, but whether he commits one of the offences laid down in Clauses 14 to 23 which arise only when the organisation is proscribed.
I shall return to the example I gave earlier in the debate; namely, that of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. I believe that I have made it clear that I have no sympathy whatever with that organisation. The Government would be right to take action to stop the activities of that particular terrorist organisation, which has brought such misery to the people of Sri Lanka. However, my point is this. The Secretary of State can make an order proscribing the LTTE at 10 o'clock in the morning. Someone in that organisation might continue to solicit money from its members for the purposes of the organisation—it is always declared that such donations are for the welfare of the people in the Tamil north rather than for terrorist purposes, but it is known that the money is somehow diverted into the military activities of the LTTE. Notwithstanding my abhorrence of the acts of violence committed by the organisation, if the Secretary of State makes an urgent decision to ban the organisation, its members should not be made liable for prosecution for something which they could not know had become a criminal offence by reason of that decision to invoke the urgent procedures laid down in Clause 122(4).
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We would be wise to be cautious in these matters, given the serious nature of terrorism and terrorist offences. It is that precautionary principle that has informed our approach here.
I understand the difficulties in which individuals might be placed, given the circumstances set out by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but we have made it clear

265
that if, subsequently, the organisation was successful on appeal, then, quite properly, restitution would be made. Those procedures need to be fully understood.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The conviction would not be set aside unless it had been made after the Home Secretary had rejected the application for the de-proscription order. So someone who is convicted of membership before the de-proscription order is applied for, or even after application has been made and before it has been dealt with by the Home Secretary, would find that the conviction would stand.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I should like to reflect on the words used by the noble Lord. That would seem to be quite right.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I apologise for intervening once more. The noble Lord has said that that seems to be "quite right". How can it be right for someone to be convicted of a form of conduct which has been proscribed without fair warning? The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, rightly pointed out that terrorists must know what they are up to, but they will not know, until they have been informed that this procedure has been triggered, that they will be committing terrorist offences under this part of the Bill. Surely that violates the fundamental principle of legal certainty? Is not that the problem which needs to be addressed, whether by enhancing the rights of appeal or in some other way?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord will know better than I because he is a noble and "learned" Lord and the notion of legal certainty is extremely important.
I am quite happy to look at the point that has been made here. However, I believe that we are satisfied with the arrangements that we have set out. They are not entirely unfamiliar. Furthermore, we believe that the appeal process provided for is simple enough to be comprehensible and easily understood in those circumstances.
Perhaps all noble Lords will think about what I have said in response to their earlier comments and study the Hansard report. No doubt they shall wish to reflect carefully on the Government's position. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will consider the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. In the course of that consideration, will he reflect on the need for the Secretary of State to publicise any decision which has immediate effect so that people in the wider society do not unwittingly commit acts that become offences, but which previously were not offences?
Lord Goodhart: It is not my intention to press this matter to a vote today. However, it is likely that we
266
shall bring back these amendments in a varied form on Report. However, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 26 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Section 7: Scotland and Northern Ireland]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 34, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 32 although I do not wish to press it tonight. The amendment has been tabled in order to ask the Minister if the Scottish Parliament has been consulted here. I am aware that matters of antiterrorism and the other principal matters contained in this Bill are reserved matters for the Westminster Parliament and the Government of the United Kingdom. However, these proposals have effects on the Scottish judicial system, which is a devolved matter. It therefore seems proper for the Scottish Parliament, not only the Scottish Executive, to be consulted about these matters. I have tabled the amendments in order to ask whether that is so.
Lord Bach: The answer to the noble Lord's question is that the Scottish Executive has been consulted, but not the Scottish Parliament. I shall go into a little more detail if the noble Lord requires me to do so. This is obviously a probing amendment and we appreciate it.
These amendments would have the effect of removing from the Bill the application to Scotland of the appeal right in Clause 7, and the provisions for forfeiture and restraint orders in Schedule 4. We have assumed that these are probing amendments; otherwise they would be wrecking amendments. They must be one or the other.
As noble Lords are aware, terrorism is a matter reserved to the Westminster Parliament, under Head B8 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. To deal first with Amendment No. 32, subsection (1) of Clause 8 makes the necessary applications to Scotland of the provisions of Clause 7. Those provisions are concerned with, as subsection (1) of Clause 7 states, a situation where, first, an appeal under Clause 5 to the proscribed organisations appeal commission against a refusal to de-proscribe an organisation has been allowed by the commission; secondly, an order has been made under Clause 3(3) to remove the name of the organisation from the list in Schedule 2; thirdly, a person has been convicted of an offence in respect of the organisation under various clauses of the Bill; and,

267
fourthly, the activity to which the charge referred took place on or after the date of the refusal to refuse to de-proscribe an organisation.
These are all matters concerned with the subject matter of terrorism. They are not concerned in any way with the general principles of Scots criminal law. In fact, subsection (1) of Clause 8 is an example of the provision referred to in Section 29(4) of the Scotland Act; that is, it is a provision which relates to the reserved matter of terrorism; it modifies Scots criminal law in relation to that reserved matter of terrorism and should therefore be treated itself as relating to the reserved matter of terrorism.
In all respects, subsection (1) of Clause 8 is properly included in the Bill as relating exclusively to the reserved matter of terrorism. To remove that subsection would be to deny persons in Scotland essential elements of the commission remedy which will he available in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Turning to Amendment No. 42, under Clause 23 the Scottish court which convicts a person of an offence under any of Clauses 15 to 18 may make a forfeiture order —that is an order whereby money or other property of the offender is ordered by the court to be forfeited, where that money or property was in the possession or under the control of the offender at the time of the offence. Part II of Schedule 4 sets out in detail for Scotland how forfeiture orders are to work in general and in particular circumstances.
Part II of Schedule 4 therefore contains detailed provision for the purposes of Clause 23, which in turn depends on a person having been convicted under any of Clauses 15 to 18 of the Bill. I shall not go through each of the offences set out in the four clauses.
It is clear that each of the offences to which Clause 23 and Schedule 4 apply is an offence relating to terrorism. A glance at the Bill shows that. Under the section of the Scotland Act to which I have referred, terrorism is, of course, reserved to this Parliament. It is therefore proper that provisions for Scotland comparable to the provisions being made for England, Wales and Northern Ireland elsewhere in Schedule 4 to the Bill should be included the Bill.
It would not be within the competence of the Parliament at Holyrood to deal with this matter, and I am sure that noble Lords would not wish that no provision were made for Scotland in respect of forfeiture orders.
The answer to the noble Lord's question is that the executive has been consulted. I know that I have given rather a full answer, but it perhaps explains how the Bill fits in with the reserved powers.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister has indeed given a full answer, but that does not mean to say that it is satisfactory. I fully understand that terrorism is a reserved matter. However, these provisions lay down time limits in various cases in the Scottish courts, and the judicial system is a devolved matter. However, I do not propose to press the matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
268
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Membership]:
8.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdalehad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: Tempted though I am, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Avebury: I should like to reinforce what was said earlier about the case that I outlined of an order being made by the Secretary of State under Clause 3 and treated as a matter of urgency as a result of the provisions in Clause 122(4).
Perhaps I may illustrate the point. You are a member of an organisation that has functioned perfectly legally in the United Kingdom up until this point. At 10 o'clock one morning the Secretary of St ate makes an order which he deems to be urgent proscribing that organisation. You are then committing an offence if you carry out any of the acts mentioned in Clauses 14 to 23. Your only defence, under Clause 11, is if you can prove that you became a member of the organisation at a time when it was not proscribed. But, in addition, you have to prove that you took no part in the activities of the organisation at the time when it was proscribed. So any act that you have committed between the moment when the Secretary of State made the order and your coming to the knowledge of it by reason of the Secretary of State within 40 days having laid an order before Parliament, is liable to prosecution; and if you are convicted you may be sentenced to prison for 10 years.
It is a very serious matter to prosecute someone for an act that he did not know was criminal at the time he was committing it and to make him liable to a sentence of imprisonment. I really do think that the Minister has not given sufficient thought to the implications of Clause 122(4) and its repercussions with reference to earlier clauses in the Bill, particularly Clause 11, which provides for extremely serious penalties to be imposed on a person for being a member of an organisation and taking any part whatsoever in its activities. Is that provision really what the Committee wants in the Bill?
Lord Hylton: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the point he has just made. However, my concern relates to Clause 11(2) placing the burden of proof entirely on the defendant, who must prove absolutely the various points set out. I wonder whether the Government would be happy to accept, at the next stage of the Bill, an amendment using some lesser

269
words—for example, "to show", which would not require such a high standard of proof. As presently drafted, the provision seems draconian.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may add another question to the multiple-choice examination that we have inflicted upon the Minister. Might the Government seek to solve the problem by accepting that under Clause 11(1) guilty knowledge is necessary; in other words, that a person commits an offence if he knowingly belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation? That would take care of the problem raised by my noble friend.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 11(2) contains a defence to cover the very rare and specific set of circumstances in which a person becomes a member of an organisation before it is proscribed and has played no part in it after its proscription. To all intents and purposes the person has left the organisation, although that may not be possible in the circumstances. Normally, it is an offence to be a member of a proscribed organisation and no distinction is drawn between active and passive membership, but in the interests of justice this provision makes an exception in the specific case that I have set out. Having made an exception to the general rule that membership per se is an offence, it seems reasonable that the onus should be on the defendant to make the case that he or she has not played an active part in the organisation. As I understand it, there have been no prosecutions for this offence since 1990. In the period 1991 to 1998 only 90 people have been convicted of the offence in Northern Ireland.
It is important to ensure that there is power for proscription to take effect immediately. If an organisation pursues an active campaign of terrorism in this country the public will expect it to be made illegal now, not given a warning that it needs to argue the case on appeal. In general Clause 11 makes it an offence to belong or profess to belong to a proscribed organisation. That provision is modelled on legislation with which we are very familiar: Section 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Section 30(1)(a) of the emergency provisions Act. There is a defence. The issues have been made clear and understood. But it is important to have the flexibility that we have sought to provide in the legislation. While I have listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Avery, the Government believe that they have got the balance right in Clause 11.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Support]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7. line 9, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: Under Clause 12(2) a person commits an offence if, among other things, he arranges a meeting which he knows,
"is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation".
The purpose of Amendment No. 35 is to delete that part of the clause. A meeting can include one of only three people. It will, therefore, be an offence under Clause 12(2) for a person to arrange a meeting with members of a proscribed organisation to try to persuade them to give up terrorism. It will be an offence for a journalist to arrange a meeting with two members of a proscribed organisation in order to obtain information for the purposes of the media. Apart from Crown privilege, it would even be an offence for members of the Government to meet members of the IRA. Subject to parliamentary privilege, it would make it an offence for my noble friend Lord Alderdice to manage any meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly since that body undoubtedly includes members of the IRA.
We do not object to those parts of Clause 12(2) which make it an offence to arrange a meeting to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation. However, we object to Clause 12(2)(c). Amendment No. 36 raises a similar point in respect of Clause 12(3) under which a person commits an offence if he addresses a meeting which he knows is to be addressed by a member of a proscribed organisation. Therefore, a person who speaks at a meeting in order to denounce the proscribed organisation is still guilty of an offence. We do not regard Clause 12 as acceptable as it stands.
Lord Hylton: I support the pair of amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken. The amendments do something to reduce the over-wide drafting of the Bill as it stands. The kinds of people who could be caught by the Bill as it stands would include those who went to a meeting specifically to condemn violence or criminal activity, or simply to put the other side of an argument. The provision is also likely to catch negotiators, mediators and go-betweens of one kind or another who probably genuinely seek to resolve a conflict or defuse a situation. I hope that the Government will consider this matter very fully.
Lord Skelmersdale: Surely, that is the case only if one ignores subsection (4) which provides:
"in subsections (2) and (3) 'meeting' means a meeting of three or more persons".
That cannot possibly catch a go-between.
Lord Goodhart: Of course it can. If the go-between meets two members of the IRA that is a meeting of three people.
Lord Hylton: A completely innocent person such as the custodian or caretaker of a hall is potentially at risk.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have added my name to my noble friend's amendment. The most serious concern of Justice, of whose council and executive I declare an interest as a member, is that the restrictions placed on free speech and freedom of assembly by Clause 12 violate the human rights standards in the European convention. The reasons have been given by

271
all noble Lords who have spoken so far. The effect of the provisions is that those who organise meetings and share the platform with supporters of a proscribed organisation to debate with them, or even to oppose the actions of the proscribed organisation, can themselves be liable to a criminal charge, which is quite absurd. It is absurd because there is no requirement that a speaker at the meeting should promote any terrorist cause or express any sympathy with it in order to be liable to prosecution.
Various examples can be given and most have already been cited. I add two more for good measure. If General de Chastelain held a press conference with a member of a terrorist organisation to announce a decommissioning initiative he could potentially be breaking the law if the clause as it stands is retained. If a journalist organised an interview with a number of members of a proscribed organisation to inform the public and contribute to the debate, under the Bill he or she could be liable to prosecution. If a victim of terrorist violence addresses a meeting at which he knows members of a terrorist organisation will be present in an attempt to persuade them to abandon violence he also incurs the risk of prosecution under Clause 12.
The Home Secretary insisted in another place that Clause 12 would be applied selectively and with discretion by the Director of Public Prosecutions, but nothing in the Bill imposes any limitation. One of the problems of Clause 12, which that does not deal with, is that it has an inevitable chilling effect. Whatever may be the policy of the DPP, the threat of prosecution and the substantial penalty under Clause 12 could hinder effective democratic debate and interfere with the freedom of expression and assembly rights of a wide range of individuals. That plays into the hands of terrorism and violates elementary principles of the rule of law and the effective protection of human rights.
Lord Avebury: These provisions could affect the work of reputable organisations in the United Kingdom which are concerned with conflict resolution. I shall refer to just two of them. International Alert and Conciliation Resources are concerned with trying to solve the conflicts in other parts of the world. In order to do so, they invite and hold discussions with protagonists in their offices. In the past I have been present at some of those discussions.
Let us suppose that one is interested in the problems of Sudan where civil war has been raging for years. One invites members of the Sudan People's Liberation Army to a meeting in London for the purposes of ascertaining whether there are any grounds on which progress can be made with the Government's ideas on devolution and federalism. If the SPLA was an organisation proscribed under the Bill, those activities would become illegal.
We should do well not to focus as narrowly as we have done on the Irish dimension. We have to envisage a situation in which a number of organisations, engaged in armed opposition to their own governments, are proscribed. I sought earlier to elicit
272
from the Minister under which principles those organisations would come in the terms of the Bill. The noble Lord was unwilling to discuss whether the United States State Department list would be used as a model. That is an extensive list. If we were to adopt it and proscribe all the organisations on it, there would be a great many illegal bodies operating within the United Kingdom.
However, let us suppose that we have a different list. The noble Lord seemed to indicate that we would not be too bothered about whether or not the Americans deemed an organisation to be terrorist. The problem then is that an organisation may be terrorist in one country but not another. That does not seem in conformity with the efforts made over the past years to gain concerted international action to deal with terrorism wherever it occurs.
In one way or another, we are in difficulties. Those difficulties arise mainly from the fact that we do not know how the powers will be used. The Government appear unwilling to tell us the extent to which they will go in banning organisations which have operated lawfully for many years in the United Kingdom. I wish the Government would go a little further in what they are prepared to say. Otherwise the Committee is in some difficulty.
9 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened to the points raised by Members of the Committee. As I understand the argument, if we did not accept the amendments we would somehow end up locking up General de Chastelain and the noble Lord. Lord Alderdice. We would interfere with well respected organisations such as International Alert which seek to resolve conflict. We would be exercising heavy and draconian powers if such absurd situations were in some way to come to light.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, put his finger on the point. He referred back to the words of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Of course, the Director of Public Prosecutions will exercise carefully and sensitively his discretion on how this part of the legislation will operate. But if we accepted the amendments it would delete a potentially serious offence of arranging or managing, or assisting in arranging or managing, a meeting by a person who knows that the meeting is to be addressed,
"by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation".
In other words, someone acts as a facilitator to provide a proscribed organisation—we only proscribe organisations in extremis—with that important element of support, the oxygen of publicity.
I am confident that noble Lords, in particular those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, do not wish to do that. I believe that they make the clause more draconian than it is. We cannot tell how the provision will work until it is used but I am confident that it will be used sparingly. I am well aware of the arguments raised by Justice: that the clause should be remodelled

273
because it could have potential to hinder political debate and freedom of assembly. But that is not the Government's intention.
In another place we undertook to consider the "addressing" issue. We sought to find some way to construe the term to cover mere speaking. We have considered the point carefully. Clause 12(4) makes it clear that meetings may be private or public and may involve three or more people. So "sharing a platform"—it is one of the terms suggested—could give the wrong flavour.
We have a difficult balance to strike. We have perhaps been cautious in the exercise of the powers contained in the clause. But we believe that we have got the balance right. But where a prosecution is brought under Clause 12, it will be open to any accused to raise any convention rights in his defence under Section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 which will have come fully into force.
I doubt whether the noble Lords who tabled the amendments will be persuaded by what I have said. However, in giving the issue their careful consideration, they perhaps seek to view the clauses in their worst light. I am confident that the clauses will not be interpreted and used in the way suggested. We must ensure that we get matters right in the provisions dealing with proscribed organisations.
I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on what I have said and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I accept that in all probability the Director of Public Prosecutions would exercise his discretion in such a way as to prevent anyone who acts broadly in the public interest in meeting with members of a terrorist organisation from being prosecuted under Clause 12. However, no one who does that in the public interest should be forced to rely on the exercise of a discretion. The fact that someone is placed potentially in the position of having to rely on the DPP's discretion in order to avoid a prosecution shows fairly clearly, I believe, that there is something wrong with Clause 12.
We shall not press the amendment to a vote on this occasion, but I believe that it is almost certainly an issue that we shall bring back on Report. I hope that on that occasion the Minister will be able to enlarge on why he believes that, as it now stands, it is compliant with the convention rights under the Human Rights Act. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Uniform]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 7, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I tabled this amendment in order to ask a question to which I suspect I should know the answer and it should not take very long. Clause 13(2) states:
"A constable in Scotland may arrest a person without a warrant …"
Why only in Scotland, or is it automatically a police power in England? I beg to move.
Lord Bach: The purpose of subsection (2) is to give a constable in Scotland power to arrest without a warrant where he suspects that a person is guilty of an offence under Clause 13(1). This is not a novel provision for Scotland. It simply repeats subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and, before that, comparable provisions in earlier prevention of terrorism Acts.
Express provision is required for Scotland since, at common law, the power of a constable to arrest without a warrant for statutory offences is not clear. We believe that subsection (2) provides the necessary clarity. This can be compared with the fact that no such provision is required in Clause 13 for England and Wales because, under the general arrest provisions of Section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a constable would have the power to arrest without a warrant. As the noble Lord knows, PACE does not apply to Scotland.
Therefore, subsection (2) is necessary for Scotland in order to put beyond doubt a Scottish constable's powers of arrest and to ensure consistency with the position in England and Wales.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. As I said, I should have known the answer but did not. However, it raises a more general point upon which I would ask the noble Lord and, indeed, the whole of his department to reflect. Periodically, this provision appears in Bills. Would it not be far more sensible if one changed the whole of Scottish law to take account of that? I do not expect an answer now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7, line 32, after ("liable") insert—
("(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or a tine, or both, or
(b)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 13 concerns the wearing of uniform or other articles of clothing, and so on, by terrorists. This is deeply offensive. It takes place sometimes at funerals and sometimes on other occasions. It is particularly offensive to victims of the organisations concerned.
So far as concerns the court case which should follow if someone is accused of the offence, in putting the clause into the Bill the Government have a choice of following either the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which provides only for summary conviction in such cases, or of following the emergency provisions Act,

275
which provides that in important and repeated cases the accused can be charged on indictment. It seemed to me that it was at least worth asking why they had followed the PTA instead of the EPA and to suggest that they might like to preserve the stronger penalty in this case, as they have done in several of the preceding clauses which relate to other similar offences. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has underlined the point that I have been seeking to make: that is, what was suitable and appropriate in the conditions in Northern Ireland may no longer be so in a Bill that extends the scope of its provisions to a large number of organisations which in future are to be proscribed by the Secretary of State and of which we have no knowledge at the moment.
I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said about the offensiveness of using symbols and colours in such a way as to insult the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. When we consider what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom, what we are saying is that an organisation may be banned here and that from that point onwards a person who wears or displays an article that arouses reasonable suspicion even I hat he is a member is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, wishes to raise to one year.
I mention the PPK at random—it happens to be one of those organisations treated as terrorists by the United States, and I keep referring back to the State Department list because we have no other way of knowing what organisations the Secretary of State may proscribe in the future—and considering the disapproval of the PPK which has been evinced by the Government in the past, it might well be a prime candidate for proscribing. Let us suppose that a person does have an article such as a hold-all which displays the PM(colours and he attends a meeting which discusses Kurdish matters. The police, viewing him at the meeting and deciding that there are circumstances which arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation by reason of the fact that he is displaying its colours—even though it might be something he bought in a shop that happens to coincide with the colours of the PPK—put two and two together. They have reasonable suspicion from his display of that article that he is a member of the proscribed organisation. He is committing an offence that could result in his imprisonment for six months or, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would have it, a year. I think that what may be appropriate in the circumstances in Northern Ireland is not, from now onwards, going to be appropriate in a situation where a number of organisations, which are deemed to be terrorist from an international point of view, become proscribed by the Secretary of State.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Bach: Proscribed organisations are, to use a cliche, "beyond the pale". They are out of bounds. That is why they have been made proscribed organisations. That is the answer to the point made by
276
the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It does not matter whether they come from Northern Ireland or, in the future, from anywhere else. Of course, if the person involved could be prosecuted on the basis that carrying the article aroused reasonable suspicion that he was a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, and that person, having been charged and brought before a court and having pleaded guilty or having been found guilty, then argued that he did not realise it, it is very unlikely, it seems to me, if the court accepted the explanation, that the person would go anywhere near a prison. One has to remember that what we are talking about in this amendment is the maximum sentence and not the minimum sentence because any sentence is at large less than the maximum for an offence like this.
I turn to the amendment we are discussing. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that this clause replicates an offence which appears in the two Acts about which we have talked so much, the prevention of terrorism Act and the emergency provisions Act. The prevention of terrorism Act version of the offence, which has effect in Great Britain, is a summary-only offence with the maximum six months imprisonment. The emergency provisions Act version, which has effect in Northern Ireland., is an either-way offence with maximum penalty on indictment of a year's imprisonment.
In consolidating our anti-terrorist legislation, the Government clearly had to address the issue that an identical offence had a different maximum penalty under different legislation. Were we to go up or down? Everyone agrees that the wearing of such garments or wearing, carrying or displaying such an article is deeply offensive and, at its worst, calls for a custodial sentence. No one in your Lordships' House. I believe, has argued against that.
But I need to point out that this offence has been used only rarely in recent years. Records suggest that there have been only two prosecutions in Northern Ireland since 1991, both of which led to convictions, and there have been no prosecutions in Great Britain for the same period. That is not to suggest that the offence is not important. There are indications that its very existence has a deterrent effect. We believe it is right that those who wear clothing or insignia linked directly to a proscribed group should remain liable to prosecution.
But given the infrequent use of the offence, it would be difficult to argue that there is a strong case for setting the penalty at a higher level. There is certainly no suggestion that a lower penalty level has been an insufficient deterrent. I remind the Committee that that applies to Great Britain where there have been no prosecutions. That would usually be the reason to increase a penalty; that it had a greater deterrent effect.
We are not persuaded that the higher penalty is required. The arguments are nicely balanced. We do not say that it was an easy decision to reach. But we believe that we made the right decision and that six months is appropriate as a maximum for this unpleasant offence.

277
Having heard our reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will consider what we have said and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the Minister emphasised, the importance of this offence is as much in its deterrent effect as anything. It is because of its deterrent effect that the offenders are difficult to catch in the act. They do their best to make sure that they are not caught in the act. They appear sometimes in Northern Ireland very briefly—at funerals, for example.
However, as the Minister acknowledged, the maximum penalty has been reduced in Northern Ireland in attempt to level out the matter. I am not sure
278
that I personally agree with that. The noble Lord did not give a reason but said that it is a question of balance. Nevertheless, I shall not pursue the issue at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past nine o'clock.

  South Downs: Restoration and Access
  South Downs: Restoration and Access
  Merseyside Objective 1 Single Programming Documents
  Merseyside Objective 1 Single Programming Documents
  Waste Incineration Directive
  Waste Incineration Directive
  Agricultural Buildings and Council Tax
  Agricultural Buildings and Council Tax
  Tourism and the Planning System
  Tourism and the Planning System
  Mobile Phones: House of Lords Rules
  Mobile Phones: House of Lords Rules
  Husbandry Panel on Cattle TB: Report
  Husbandry Panel on Cattle TB: Report
  Genetically Modified Crops: Objections Process
  Genetically Modified Crops: Objections Process
  Sentencing Decisions: Home Office Review
  Sentencing Decisions: Home Office Review
  European Parliament Elections: Review
  European Parliament Elections: Review
  Journalists' Sources of Information: Protection
  Journalists' Sources of Information: Protection
  Exports Invoiced in Dollars
  Exports Invoiced in Dollars
  Export Receipts Paid in Euros
  Export Receipts Paid in Euros
  Royal Parks Review
  Royal Parks Review
  BSE Research
  BSE Research
  Young Asylum Seekers
  Young Asylum Seekers
  Mycobacterium Bovis Infections
  Mycobacterium Bovis Infections
  Severely Disabled People and Income Support
  Severely Disabled People and Income Support
  Millennium Dome: Future
  Millennium Dome: Future
  EU Employment and Social Affairs Council
  EU Employment and Social Affairs Council
  Armed Forces Discipline Acts: Consolidation
  Armed Forces Discipline Acts: Consolidation